Electric universe theories here.

Ziggurat · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You have never explained to me what you think these formulas relate to (physically) if not the electrons, ion and photons of the EM field. I'm really curious now what you believe all this math relates to exactly?

And you've never explained to me how many photons I need to add up to create a 1 Tesla field. There's a reason I'm asking that question, Michael, and it isn't in the hopes that you'll give a wrong number.

As a matter of fact, you've never quantified any of your ideas. I'm still waiting.

Reality Check · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If it were "quasi-neutral", it would not create the persistent magnetic fields. Hoy. What doublespeak.

Hoy. What ignorance.
Turbulent flows in plasma create magnetic fields, e.g. the Sun's magnetic field.

Michael Mozina said:
No, I didn't think you'd take me seriously to the point of absurdity. Sure you probably underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM just like you underestimate everything else, but I do not believe all the missing mass is found in the lowly electron, and not all forms of "current flow" involve "electrons".

Then the question is moot.
ETA: Well almost

!
Astronomers look at the radiation of electrons in the ISM to determine its density. What you are asserting is that there are non-radiating electrons in the ISM. Let us call these dark electrons.
What is your evidence for the existence of dark electrons?
What is your estimate for the amount of "underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM"?
Is this important enough for a separate question or is it just a random unsupported assertion?

Michael Mozina said:
Care to answer either to the two questions I posed to everyone else yet? I've never seen the whole lot of you get so quiet so fast. You must all be scared silly. I guess the moment you admit it's all related the movement of charged particles and carrier particles of the EM field, you'll have to cop to the fact it's "particle reconnection" and ultimately "circuit reconnection". Is that the reason nobody else wants to answer these questions?

Not scared at all. The answers are so obvious that a child can inderstand them.
Even I know that MHD is an approximation to actual plasma physics.
Even I know that the equations of MHD are fluid equations (that is the approximation - treating the plasma particles as a fluid) where there are no such things as particles.

sol invictus · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Before we can talk about what "connects" and "reconnects" at various locations, I need to ask you two basic "physics" questions, starting with the same question I put to tusenfem.

In other words, you don't know enough math to understand even simple vector notation, so you'll try to change the subject.

In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to *if* not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field?

Does the formula I wrote "relate" to the charged particles in some plasma? Maybe, maybe not - that field could exist in a plasma, but it could also exist somewhere else. If it's in a plasma, then yes, obvious, it "relates" to it.

I wrote a formula for the magnetic field. That tells you everything you need to know - you can calculate the current, if any. Or rather, someone who knows basic calculus could.

In terms of what "physically reconnects", what *physical things(s)* are you claiming is 'reconnecting' at *ANY* location in plasma?

We're talking about magnetic field line reconnection, Michael, which you claimed was impossible. So why are you asking this stupid question?

Here's what you said:

The full continuum that is the magnetic field is physically incapable of "disconnecting' or "reconnecting' to other magnetic field lines.

That is flat-out wrong. There's no way around it - you can squirm and flipflop and try to confuse things by asking meaningless questions, but you're wrong, and we all know it.

sol invictus · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
MHD theory is all about the study of the particles

No. MHD is an approximation in which one treats a conductive fluid using hydrodynamics coupled to electromagnetism. It's precisely NOT about the study of particles, any more than studying tsunamis is about hydrogen dioxide molecules.

The only "things" that MHD theory describe or can describe are the particles of plasma (the electrons/protons/ect) and the photons that make up the EM field.

It describes, approximately, an extremely large number of such particles moving coherently. That's the only situation in which it's useful. It cannot describe those particles individually or in small numbers, and it tells you almost nothing about what they are or what properties they have.

So, as usual, you're wrong. And as usual, you're wrong about physics, not math (you're never wrong about math because you never do any, because you don't know enough to balance a checkbook, let alone handle any physics equations).

Michael Mozina · Jul 27, 2009

sol invictus said:
In other words, you don't know enough math to understand even simple vector notation, so you'll try to change the subject.

No, in other words, your "problem" has nothing to with math (as usual) and everything to do with your poor understanding of the physics (as usual).

That is flat-out wrong. There's no way around it - you can squirm and flipflop and try to confuse things by asking meaningless questions, but you're wrong, and we all know it.

It's not "flat out wrong", it's exactly why Aflven called such stuff "pseudo-science". You can't understand the math because you don't understand the physics. Let me demonstrate that for you in Alfven's own words and your next post.....

Tubbythin · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
No, in other words, you "problem" has nothing to with math (as usual) and everything to do with your poor understanding of the physics (as usual).

Says the person who's alternative solution for the CMBR got the peak temperature wrong by a factor of 700 million.

Michael Mozina · Jul 27, 2009

sol invictus said:
No. MHD is an approximation in which one treats a conductive fluid using hydrodynamics coupled to electromagnetism.

Ok.

It's precisely NOT about the study of particles, any more than studying tsunamis is about hydrogen dioxide molecules.

False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.

2 .2 . Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic
field
2 .2 .1 . Unperturbed motion
Consider a particle of rest mass m and charge e in a homogeneous
magnetic field B . The velocity v of the particle has the component vii
parallel to the magnetic field and the component v t perpendicular to
it . The momentum of the particle is.......(more of that math you love but refuse to accept)

Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

Michael Mozina · Jul 27, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Says the person who's alternative solution for the CMBR got the peak temperature wrong by a factor of 700 million.

I'm sure that strawman vaguely relates to some previous conversation we had, but I can't for life of me figure out how you created that strawman exactly. Care to enlighten me?

Reality Check · Jul 27, 2009

Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons

First asked 28 July 2008

Michael Mozina said:
No, I didn't think you'd take me seriously to the point of absurdity. Sure you probably underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM just like you underestimate everything else, but I do not believe all the missing mass is found in the lowly electron, and not all forms of "current flow" involve "electrons".

Astronomers look at the radiation of electrons in the ISM to determine its density. What you are asserting is that there are non-radiating electrons in the ISM. BTW: The Wikipedia article has a nice image of the H II (ionized hydrogen) distribution in the Milky Way and a chart including how the various components of the ISM are measured (including neutral hydrogen).

Let us call these "non-radiating electrons" dark electrons.

What is your evidence for the existence of dark electrons?

Reality Check · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok.
False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.
Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

Sheesh. You really are *SAD* MM.

I do not even have to have to have book to see your mistake.
"Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic field" obviously refers to the motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic field, i.e. has nothing to do with MHD which has no particles by definition.

Let me guess - Alfven is stating the basic laws of electromagnetism and showing some examples before going onto the actual MHD theory.

Tubbythin · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm sure that strawman vaguely relates to some previous conversation we had, but I can't for life of me figure out how you created that strawman exactly. Care to enlighten me?

Your solution to the origin of the CMBR was:

The CMBR was originally calculated in 1926 by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington using the formula E = σT4 which predicted an ambient temperature of 3 K - very near the measured value of 2.73 K. In other words, It fits perfectly.

But this was never ever a prediction of the CMBR. And quite obviously has nothing to do with the CMBR.

I was merely suggesting you should think twice before telling people they have a poor understanding of physics. You don't exactly have a record to be proud of.

Tubbythin · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ok.

False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.

Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

And... err... that proves your point how?

Michael Mozina · Jul 27, 2009

Reality Check said:
Sheesh. You really are *SAD* MM.

I do not even have to have to have book to see your mistake.

This "not reading" thing seems to be a familiar pattern with you folks. I don't suppose you ever actually read the book I cited or Cosmic Plasma, or is this another pure argument from ignorance thing?

Let me guess - Alfven is stating the basic laws of electromagnetism and showing some examples before going onto the actual MHD theory.

Let me guess....you never actually read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 etc of *ANY* of his books?

Reality Check · Jul 27, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Your solution to the origin of the CMBR was:

But this was never ever a prediction of the CMBR. And quite obviously has nothing to do with the CMBR.

I was merely suggesting you should think twice before telling people they have a poor understanding of physics. You don't exactly have a record to be proud of.

MM may not remember this because he posted it here in the Plasma Cosmology Woo or Not thread.
MM was just repeating the mistake that he read in a rather bad paper about the history of the CMBR predictions. The paper's mistake was that
Eddington was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly).
The CMB is not non-thermal integrated star light.

Of course there is MM's classic response when this was pointed out:

Michael Mozina said:
A totally bogus paper that makes the same mistake Mozina made, by insisting that Eddington had predicted the background temperature, when he clearly did not. Just read Eddington. He was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly). But the CMB must have a Planck Law shape, a trait common to all big bang theories based on general relativity.

Click to expand...

So you stuff a theory with metaphysical entities to "make it fit", is that the idea?

Tubbythin · Jul 27, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Says the person who's alternative solution for the CMBR got the peak temperature wrong by a factor of 700 million.

Oops. That should in fact have been got the intensity at close to the peak wavelength wrong by a factor of 700 million.

Michael Mozina · Jul 27, 2009

Tubbythin said:
And... err... that proves your point how?

I'm personally mystified as to why you're even engaged in this conversation, or why you would join this sinking rat infested ship. I don't suppose you've read Alfven's books?

If you don't agree that MDH theory is the study of plasma and the carrier particles of the EM field, then exactly what does all that math physically relate to in your opinion?

Tubbythin · Jul 27, 2009

Reality Check said:
MM may not remember this because he posted it here in the Plasma Cosmology Woo or Not thread.
MM was just repeating the mistake that he read in a rather bad paper about the history of the CMBR predictions. The paper's mistake was that
Eddington was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly).
The CMB is not non-thermal integrated star light.

What really illustrated how badly Michael failed to understand what he was talking about, however, was that he still completely failed to see a problem with Eddington's result as a solution even after it being handed to him -very explicitly - on a plate.

Reality Check · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
This "not reading" thing seems to be a familiar pattern with you folks. I don't suppose you ever actually read the book I cited or Cosmic Plasma, or is this another pure argument from ignorance thing?

Let me guess....you never actually read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 etc of *ANY* of his books?

That is correct - I have not.
That is why I have to work from your quote (which is obviously nothing to do with MHD) and a guess as I stated ("I guess").

ETA: I have noticed in the past that you tend to take things literally. So I am not saying that Cosmical Electrodynamics is not about MHD. I am saying that any author of a scientific textbook will cover the basics before going onto their subject. Thus Alfven would have covered the basics in his textbook. That includes looking at charged particles in magnetic fields.

I also find it strange that (according to you) Alfven leaps straight into MHD on page 18. I would have expected that he would have first stated the basics, e.g. the effects of magnetic fields on particles. But then that it what you quote :eye-poppi

!

2 .2 . Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic
field
2 .2 .1 . Unperturbed motion
Consider a particle of rest mass m and charge e in a homogeneous
magnetic field B . The velocity v of the particle has the component vii
parallel to the magnetic field and the component v t perpendicular to
it . The momentum of the particle is ...

Why don't you give a more complete quote, e.g.

What is the title of section 2.2?
What is the title of section 2.1.1?
What is the math that you are not showing us?
Does the math involve fluids (MDH) or particles (electrodynamics)?

Tubbythin · Jul 27, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm personally mystified as to why you're even engaged in this conversation, or why you would join this sinking rat infested ship.

Your quote doesn't support your argument. I was making that point. It doesn't mention MHD anywhere. And since its not called "A Book on Magnetohydrodynamics and Absolutely Nothing Else" I have no reason to believe you are quoting Alfven on MHD.

I don't suppose you've read Alfven's books?

Nope.

If you don't agree that MDH theory is the study of plasma and the carrier particles of the EM field, then exactly what does all that math physically relate to in your opinion?

The coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations. Ie the dynamics of a "fluid" plasma (and such like).

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

Reality Check said:
That is correct - I have not.

So let me see....

You're an expert on MHD therory and you don't have to read Alfven at all evidently. You're an expert on RD images, but I had to show you where to find the RD SOHO images and how to pick out real stars in SOHO images. Is there anything else that you're really good at but never have studied before that I should be forewarned about?

I'm really amazed at how many of you are arguing from a place of complete and total ignorance.

That is why I have to work from your quote (which is obviously nothing to do with MHD) and a guess as I stated ("I guess").

Well, it's not a very good guess even from the quote I picked out. It's an "uneducated" guess, and those are typically the worst kind of guesses. If you ever expect to comprehend the "magneto" part of MHD theory, you'll have to understand the affect of the EM field on individual and collective groups of charged particles. If you can comprehend why one particle "flows" in a spiraling Birkeland current, it becomes easier to understand how groups of charged particles flow in similar patterns. The H part of MHD theory isn't all that matters.

I also find it strange that (according to you) Alfven leaps straight into MHD on page 18.

He doesn't. He's starting with the "basics" as you suggest, the "basics" as it relates to the EM field and it's effect on individual particles. The following chapter is where he puts the magneto part together with fluid dynamics.

I would have expected that he would have first stated the basics, e.g. the effects of magnetic fields on particles. But then that it what you quote !

It's rather eye-popping and telling to me that you would ignore the particle aspects of MHD theory. Alfven spends the whole of Cosmic plasma talking about MHD theory from the "particle" and "circuit" orientation of MHD theory. Since you folks rarely if ever seem to read his material, I guess this all should not surprise me in the least, but then hey, I guess I just gave you too much credit. My bad.

Why don't you give a more complete quote, e.g.

Why don't you go to the library and find a more complete quote for us, one that somehow supports your beliefs. Why do I have to spoon feed you his words? Why not just accept these words?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

B. Magnetic Merging -- A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfv6n, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in I. 3, II. 3, and I1.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist. A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985).

They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

Tubbythin said:
Your quote doesn't support your argument. I was making that point. It doesn't mention MHD anywhere. And since its not called "A Book on Magnetohydrodynamics and Absolutely Nothing Else" I have no reason to believe you are quoting Alfven on MHD.

How about that last quote from Alfven on magnetic reconnection theory? Did that support your views on "reconnection" or mine?

GeeMack · Jul 28, 2009

So in all your ducking and dodging all these other people commenting in this thread, every last one of whom is telling you you're wrong by the way, you seem to have missed this, Michael...

GeeMack said:
Yeah, yeah, more crying and moaning, just as expected. But you do realize (and I hope you do, because nobody could be as stupid as you act and still have the ability to tie his own shoes) that for all your noise making, you didn't even remotely address the issue I've raised a couple dozen times now. You see, if you can't demonstrate, objectively, that what you see in a running difference graph is actually what you claim it is, then it doesn't support your whacked-out delusion. And so far, all you've shown us is your ignorance, lies, tantrums, and your flat out refusal to actually address the claim.

So here's where we were... You've utterly failed, so far, to point to an experiment that shows how you can see a surface over 4000 kilometers below the opaque photosphere of the Sun by staring at difference graphs produced using data acquired thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. That experiment, to meet your own standards of evidence, must be done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically consistent, physically sound, repeatable, and objective so that other people performing it can independently reach the same conclusion you've reached.

Can you show us that experiment, Michael? Or will you have the courage, integrity, and honesty to admit that you can't? Because as soon as we put that first image on your web site behind us, you know, you prove it shows what you claim it shows, or admit that you can't and remove it from your site, then we can move on to the next one.

(Whining, avoidance, ignorance, and probably more lies will follow. Michael will not make any effort whatsoever to provide the method for his super secret vision technique. He won't even acknowledge the particular concern I continue to raise because to acknowledge it would require that he admit failure. He'll just babble and complain, and totally pussy out, again. Oh these nutty crackpots are so predictable, aren't they?)

When can we expect you to take down that first image on your web site, you know, that running difference chart that everyone else can explain but you can't, the one that you've never even tried to describe in a way that meets your own standards of evidence?

Reality Check · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You're an expert on MHD therory and you don't have to read Alfven at all evidently. You're an expert on RD images, but I had to show you where to find the RD SOHO images and how to pick out real stars in SOHO images. Is there anything else that you're really good at but never have studied before that I should be forewarned about?

I have never claimed to be an expert in MHD theory. That is yet another unsupported assertion from you.
You do not need to be an expert to know that the definition of MHD is that it is the dynamics of electrically conductive fluids.
You do not need to be an expert to know that the equations in MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism.

I have never stated that I am an expert on RD animations.

You though are a liar:

You never told me "where to find the RD SOHO images".
I had to do that by myself.
You never told me "how to pick out real stars in SOHO images".
I had to look through the RD animations myself to find one that showed the changing positions of stars in the original images (as expected)

This thread has shown your ignorance of basic physics like thermoynamics so:
Is there anything else that you're really good at but never have studied before that we should be forewarned about?

Michael Mozina said:
I'm really amazed at how many of you are arguing from a place of complete and total ignorance.

I'm really amazed at how completely ignorant you are of the actual definition of MHD.

Michael Mozina said:
Well, it's not a very good guess even from the quote I picked out. It's an "uneducated" guess, and those are typically the worst kind of guesses. If you ever expect to comprehend the "magneto" part of MHD theory, you'll have to understand the affect of the EM field on individual and collective groups of charged particles. If you can comprehend why one particle "flows" in a spiraling Birkeland current, it becomes easier to understand how groups of charged particles flow in similar patterns. The H part of MHD theory isn't all that matters.

The H part of MHD states that it uses fluid mechanics which models matter without using the information that it is made out of atoms. At no point does it look at "groups of charged particles".
The M part of MHD states that it uses electromagnetism. That is just as important as the H part.

Michael Mozina said:
He doesn't. He's starting with the "basics" as you suggest, the "basics" as it relates to the EM field and it's effect on individual particles. The following chapter is where he puts the magneto part together with fluid dynamics.

In other words, your quote comes from a part of the book that is not about MHD, i.e. it is about "Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic field".

Michael Mozina said:
It's rather eye-popping and telling to me that you would ignore the particle aspects of MHD theory. Alfven spends the whole of Cosmic plasma talking about MHD theory from the "particle" and "circuit" orientation of MHD theory. Since you folks rarely if ever seem to read his material, I guess this all should not surprise me in the least, but then hey, I guess I just gave you too much credit. My bad.

It's rather eye-popping and telling to me that you ignore the fact the MHD theory itself has no particles.
I would expect Alfven to talk about the particles in plasmas when MHD theory is applied to the plasma. He would be extremely ignorant not to know that plasmas consist of particles.

But you seem to be confusing the application of MHD (a approximation to plasma theory using fluids with no particles) to real plasma (which do have particles).

Michael Mozina said:
Why don't you go to the library and find a more complete quote for us, one that somehow supports your beliefs. Why do I have to spoon feed you his words? Why not just accept these words?

The words I accept are the words you quoted. They are just not from the MHD section of the book as you have acknowledged above.

But if you really believe that Alfven uses "groups of charged particles" in his book "Cosmical Electrodynamics" then you can quote the places that he does so. We are waiting :eye-poppi

!

sol invictus · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.

Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

This is like arguing with a small child having a tantrum. You're just making yourself look like more and more of an idiot.

The quotes you gave are standard elecrodynamics, just as you'll find in any text. Sure, they apply to particles - but that's not MHD. Without looking at the book I can't be sure, but apparently it has a few introductory chapters explaining basic E&M.

A simple analogy might help. If you wanted to explain to someone how water waves work, you might start with a few sections on basic Newtonian mechanics. You'd probably talk about particles being acted on by forces, momentum, acceleration, etc. Then you'd go on to discuss continuous media, like water in the hydrodynamic approximation. That's a pedagogically logical order to go in, because the equations of hydrodynamics are nothing more than Newton's equations applied to a liquid.

But you'd never discuss hydrogen dioxide, because it's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. MHD is just like that - it makes precisely the same fluid approximation, where you treat the medium as continuous.

Reality Check · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
How about that last quote from Alfven on magnetic reconnection theory? Did that support your views on "reconnection" or mine?

I can answer this - neither.
It supports Alfven's views on double layers, frozen-in magnetic fields and magnetic merging in 1986.

ETA: I would say that he is not talking about magnetic reconnection ("merging") in general but is talking about the specifc case where the magnetic field is not frozen into the plasma.

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

Reality Check said:
I can answer this - neither.

Wow. That puts you in a really elite category of really bizarre and twisted rationalizations. Please do elaborate how that quote works against my position in any way, or how it helps your position in any way? I really do smell a big fat juicy rationalization in there somewhere, and I'm a real sucker for a juicy rationalization. Please do elaborate.

It supports Alfven's views on double layers, frozen-in magnetic fields and magnetic merging in 1986.

Well, I can quote him from later if you like? Would that make any difference?

I'm really fascinated to understand what you think all these formulas relate to if not plasma particles and the carrier particles of EM fields. That is all that there is physically here to work with boys and girls. His views aren't going to change due to point at the sky exercises and more of the same bizarre claims. Magnetic fields lack physical substance, save perhaps the photons that make up that field. The interaction between photon and plasma particle is called "induction". It has a proper name that has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection". A coil is a great example of induction between the EM field and charged particles. Like I said, induction has a proper name and Alfven refers to it often.

ETA: I would say that he is not talking about magnetic reconnection ("merging") in general but is talking about the specifc case where the magnetic field is not frozen into the plasma.

The magnetic field can *never* be frozen into the kind of light plasma like we find in the solar atmosphere. There is no way to sustain these huge EM fields in light plasma without current flow. It's never going to happen. You folks can't and don't recognize "dark" electrons, because you can't even recognize the ones the light up the plasma like an arc welder.

GeeMack · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...] I'm a real sucker for a juicy rationalization.

Yes, you've demonstrated time and again that you're quite the expert at it.

Now about that issue of you taking down that running difference graph from your web site because you can't show the experiment that supports your claim about it. You know...

GeeMack said:
So here's where we were... You've utterly failed, so far, to point to an experiment that shows how you can see a surface over 4000 kilometers below the opaque photosphere of the Sun by staring at difference graphs produced using data acquired thousands of kilometers above the photosphere. That experiment, to meet your own standards of evidence, must be done right here on Earth, nothing metaphysical, no fudge factors, mathematically consistent, physically sound, repeatable, and objective so that other people performing it can independently reach the same conclusion you've reached.

Can you show us that experiment, Michael? Or will you have the courage, integrity, and honesty to admit that you can't? Because as soon as we put that first image on your web site behind us, you know, you prove it shows what you claim it shows, or admit that you can't and remove it from your site, then we can move on to the next one.

Reality Check · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Wow. That puts you in a really elite category of really bizarre and twisted rationalizations. Please do elaborate how that quote works against my position in any way, or how it helps your position in any way? I really do smell a big fat juicy rationalization in there somewhere, and I'm a real sucker for a juicy rationalization. Please do elaborate.

Well, I can quote him from later if you like? Would that make any difference?

Not really. This is just an argument from authority - a classic logical fallacy.

If your point is the magnetic reconnection does not happen or the energy is not released from magnetic reconnection then I suggest that you start by pointing out how all the experiemnets that measure the energy from magnetic reconnection events are wrong.

Michael Mozina said:
I'm really fascinated to understand what you think all these formulas relate to if not plasma particles and the carrier particles of EM fields. That is all that there is physically here to work with boys and girls. His views aren't going to change due to point at the sky exercises and more of the same bizarre claims. Magnetic fields lack physical substance, save perhaps the photons that make up that field. The interaction between photon and plasma particle is called "induction". It has a proper name that has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection". A coil is a great example of induction between the EM field and charged particles. Like I said, induction has a proper name and Alfven refers to it often.

The MHD formulas are for electrically conductive fluids. They can and are applied to plasmas. That does not mean that there are particles in MHD theory because by definition there are not.
sol invictus gave an analogy: there are no particles in hydrodynamics but hydrodynamics is applied to water and water consists of particles.

Michael Mozina said:
The magnetic field can *never* be frozen into the kind of light plasma like we find in the solar atmosphere. There is no way to sustain these huge EM fields in light plasma without current flow. It's never going to happen. You folks can't and don't recognize "dark" electrons, because you can't even recognize the ones the light up the plasma like an arc welder.

Yet another assertion - cite your sources.

Wow I thought that you were kidding about "dark" electrons. But now you are actually serious!

Reality Check · Jul 28, 2009

These are some of the questions that MM has been asked and seems incapable of answering other than by spouting unsupported assertions.

What is the amount of 171A light emitted by the photosphere and can it be detected?
First asked 6th July 2009
A post that seemed to retract his "mountain ranges" on the TRACE 171A RD animation evoked this question:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
First asked 6th July 2009
From tusenfem:
Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkelands book?
First asked 7th July 2009
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source" and in the same post
Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
First asked 7th July 2009
Is your solid iron surface thermodynamically possible?
First asked 8 July 2009
See this post for a fuller explanation of the thermodynamic problems with MM's solid iron surface.
Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
First asked 10 July 2009
Can Micheal Mozina answer a simple RD animation question?
First asked 10 July 2009
More questions for Michael Mozina about the photosphere optical depth
First asked 13 July 2009
Formation of the iron surface
First asked 13 July 2009
How much is "mostly neon" MM?
First asked 13 July 2009
Just how useless is the Iron Sun model?
First asked 13 July 2009
Coronal loop heating question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009
Coronal loop stability question for Michael Mozina
First asked 13 July 2009
He does link to his copy of Alfvén and Carlqvist's 1966 paper (Currents in the Solar Atmosphere and A theory of Solar Flares). This does not model what we now know a real solar flare acts like.
Has the hollow Iron Sun been tested?
First asked 14 July 2009
Is Saturn the Sun?
First asked 14 July 2009
(Birkelands Fig 247a is an analogy for Saturn's rings but MM compares it to to the Sun).
Question about "streams of electrons" for Micheal Mozina
First asked 14 July 2009
MM has one reply in which is mistakenly thinks that this question is about coronal loops.
What is the temperature above the iron crust in the Iron Sun model?
First asked 17 July 2009
What part of the Sun emits a nearly black body spectrum with an effective temperature of 5777 K?
(MM states that it is not the photosphere)
First asked 18 July 2009
Is the iron surface is kept cooler than the photosphere by heated particles?
First asked 18 July 2009
How does the "mostly neon" surface emit white light?
First asked 19 July 2009
Same event in different passbands = surface of the Sun moves?
First asked 22 July 2009
Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons
First asked 28 July 2008

Actual Answers From Michael Mozina:

Unsupported Assertions as Answers from Michal Mozina:

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?
First asked 23rd June 2009
So far just an unsupported assertion that astronomers have got the visible masses of galaxies wrong (and another reply with his usual "if we cannot detect it on Earth then it does not exist" non-science).
Now he is on about dark electrons (see above) as an example of matter that cannot be detected!
Why do the composition of the "mostly neon" photoshere and the corona differ?
First asked 22nd July 2009
It is "mass separation" - no actual physics cited or experiments.

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

Reality Check said:
Not really. This is just an argument from authority - a classic logical fallacy.

Ah, but when your side appeals to an authority figure of some sort, that's not a fallacy? In this case Alfven *wrote* MHD theory and is recognized for his work in MHD theory. That does make him a logical reference to resolve some specific issues.

If your point is the magnetic reconnection does not happen or the energy is not released from magnetic reconnection then I suggest that you start by pointing out how all the experiemnets that measure the energy from magnetic reconnection events are wrong.

Which ones don't depend on current flow and double layers between the current channels?

The MHD formulas are for electrically conductive fluids. They can and are applied to plasmas. That does not mean that there are particles in MHD theory because by definition there are not.

That's not the case. Plasma is simply a state of matter, and as such it has specific "qualities" that make it "unique" including it's ability to be affected by the EM fields in specific ways. Each particle can be charged and that charge will often determine the behavior of individual particles in the plasma. You're attempting to ignore the particles and the photons that these math formulas relate to. It's the individual charges that can cause differences in the movements of particles in the plasma.

sol invictus gave an analogy: there are no particles in hydrodynamics but hydrodynamics is applied to water and water consists of particles.

That was actually kind of a dumb analogy IMO. In order to properly study a tsunami, you do need to something about the properties of matter and even the properties of water.

Yet another assertion - cite your sources.

Guess you never read any of those links to Alfven's papers that I've posted eh? Not Birkeland's work either? How about Bruce? You didn't read his work either I presume?

Wow I thought that you were kidding about "dark" electrons. But now you are actually serious!

Of course I'm serious. If you can't "see them" when they heat up plasma to millions of degree in a huge solar discharge event, what confidence could I possibly have in your ability to recognize "dark" electrons in a distant galaxy? Get real. If you can't see their effect inside our own solar system, I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to find "dark" electrons from millions or billions of light years away.

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

sol invictus said:
This is like arguing with a small child having a tantrum. You're just making yourself look like more and more of an idiot.

So when you resort to juvenile name calling, that isn't childish behavior?

The quotes you gave are standard elecrodynamics, just as you'll find in any text. Sure, they apply to particles - but that's not MHD. Without looking at the book I can't be sure, but apparently it has a few introductory chapters explaining basic E&M.

Apparently so, and apparently it explains that individual charged particles follow predictable and mathematically quantifiable paths when exposed to EM fields. They individually and collectively share that trait. Yes one does have to learn to walk (with a single particle) before one can learn to run (with a bunch of them). It doesn't now however change the fact that these formulas relate to *PHYSICAL* things called "electrons", "ions" and "photons".

But you'd never discuss hydrogen dioxide, because it's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Yes I would, and of course the "properties" (like the freezing point) of water are of interest. For instance, water does not behave in space at all the way "Newtons theories" might expect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaHLwla2WiI

Why doesn't the water crush the air inside the bubble? How will it effect a wave on the water shell? See the dilemma if you never seek to understand any "properties" of water? Probably not I suppose. You folks tend to ignore the physical issues entirely.

MHD is just like that - it makes precisely the same fluid approximation, where you treat the medium as continuous.

Current carrying plasma is not always 'continuous' in the sense that it forms filaments and carries current differently than simply a "continuous' medium. Circuits form in plasmas and create important boundary conditions that are necessary to conceptually understanding specific events in plasma.

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

11 .33. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT `FIELD LINE RECONNECTION' AND `MERGING' IN THE STATIONARY MAGNETOSPHERE
Our Gedanken experiment shows that neither the injection of one test particle, a small
number of test particles, or all of the solar wind particles call for a change in the Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines . There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or `reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection' that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way.
Other arguments against reconnection models are forewarded by Heikkila (1978).
If the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near the neutral points (points where B = 0) may change in a way that may be considered as the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting . It may be argued that in this case, the usual field-line reconnection formalism should be applicable . As will be shown in II .5 this is not correct . The field line reconnection theories are erroneous also in this case.

Fig. II .17 . Auroral circuit (seen from the Sun) . The central body (Earth and ionosphere) maintains a dipole field . B, and Bz are magnetic field lines from the bddy . C is a plasma cloud near the equatorial plane moving in the sunward dri ection (out of the figure) producing an electromotive force V = J S2 V X B • ds which gives rise to a current in the circuit C 1, al , a2, C2 and Cl. In a double layer D with the voltage VD, the current releases energy at the rate P = IVD, which essentially is used for accelerating auroral electrons. The energy is transferred from C to D not by high energy particles or waves, and not by magnetic merging or field reconnection. It is a property of the electric circuit (and can also be described by the Poynting vector) .

More quotes on this topic from Cosmic Plasma (Pages 16,28)

Notice too that his "Gedanken experiments" involves the movement of one particle which he then applies to the total circuit.

Michael Mozina · Jul 28, 2009

Reality Check said:
These are some of the questions that MM has been asked .....
Coronal loops are electrical discharges?
First asked 10 July 2009

http://www.riken.go.jp/lab-www/library/publication/review/pdf/No_25/25_037.pdf

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Are you ever intending to read or respond to either Bruce's or Alfven's presentations? Is that mathematical calculation on the x-ray spectrum produced by current carrying plasma all you wanted? What's wrong with Bruce's explanations of these events as "discharges"?

Reality Check · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Ah, but when your side appeals to an authority figure of some sort, that's not a fallacy? In this case Alfven *wrote* MHD theory and is recognized for his work in MHD theory. That does make him a logical reference to resolve some specific issues.

What authority figure have I appealed to?

Alfven was an expert on MHD. And his book is a logical reference. The problem is that he is one of the few experts that you quote which makes it an appeal to authority. You should quote standard textbooks or specific papers (or even the dreaded Wikipedia) rather than concentrating on a small set of authorities.

MHD is by definition a theory of fluids. It does not contain any equations that include particles.
The only people who would say the MHD theory itself is a theory of particles are those ignorant of what the MHD theory is. That person was not Alfven. You need to word your posts more carefully so that people do not think that you are that ignorant.

Your "MHD particle" quotes are not Alfven not writing or speaking about MHD theory itself. He was talking about the application of MHD theory to the specific types of plasmas to which it can be applied to. In that case you can talk about the particles in the plasma and what they will do, e.g. for an ideal MHD plasma with strong magnetic fields, the plasma particles will follow the magnetic fields.

Michael Mozina said:
Of course I'm serious. If you can't "see them" when they heat up plasma to millions of degree in a huge solar discharge event, what confidence could I possibly have in your ability to recognize "dark" electrons in a distant galaxy? Get real. If you can't see their effect inside our own solar system, I have no confidence whatsoever in your ability to find "dark" electrons from millions or billions of light years away.

What electrons are astronomers not seeing in "when they heat up plasma to millions of degree in a huge solar discharge event"?
How do these "heated" "dark" electrons not give off any radiation?

Astronomers see plenty of electrons. "Heated" electrons give off radiation. Astronomers detect that radiation.

Get real.
How do you think that astronomers detect stars and galaxies? It is the radation emitted from stars by processes that include your "huge solar discharge event".

You do not have any confidence because you are ignorant of the science.
How do you think astronomers know about the ISM?

Hints:

Radio and infrared molecular emission and absorption lines
neutral atomic H I 21 cm line absorption
neutral atomic H I 21 cm line emission
ionized Hα emission and pulsar dispersion
ionized Hα emission and pulsar dispersion
X-ray emission; absorption lines of highly ionized metals, primarily in the ultraviolet

How do you think astronomers know about the IGM (intracluster medium)?
(Hint: Chandra).

Tubbythin · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I'm really amazed at how many of you are arguing from a place of complete and total ignorance.

Says the expert on cosmology who told us all how he was going to tear inflation to pieces and then couldn't even define pressure. I don't think it'd be possible to make a parody of an awful scientist who is as funny as you.

Well, it's not a very good guess even from the quote I picked out. It's an "uneducated" guess, and those are typically the worst kind of guesses. If you ever expect to comprehend the "magneto" part of MHD theory, you'll have to understand the affect of the EM field on individual and collective groups of charged particles. If you can comprehend why one particle "flows" in a spiraling Birkeland current, it becomes easier to understand how groups of charged particles flow in similar patterns. The H part of MHD theory isn't all that matters.

Lets all remind ourselves of what RC's guess was:

Let me guess - Alfven is stating the basic laws of electromagnetism and showing some examples before going onto the actual MHD theory.

Then you go on to say:

He doesn't. He's starting with the "basics" as you suggest, the "basics" as it relates to the EM field and it's effect on individual particles. The following chapter is where he puts the magneto part together with fluid dynamics.

So RC's guess wasn't a very good guess in one paragraph and then in the next paragraph you agree his guess was correct.

The above paragraph also illustrates how, like I said, the bits quoted earlier do not in any way support your claim.

Tubbythin · Jul 28, 2009

sol invictus said:
But you'd never discuss hydrogen dioxide, because it's totally irrelevant to the topic at hand. MHD is just like that - it makes precisely the same fluid approximation, where you treat the medium as continuous.

Don't you mean dihydrogen monoxide?

Tubbythin · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
How about that last quote from Alfven on magnetic reconnection theory? Did that support your views on "reconnection" or mine?

Huh? The argument was whether Sol's statement:

It's [MHD] precisely NOT about the study of particles

was false or not. Not whether magnetic reconnection was correct.
You then provided us with quotes that completely failed to back up your position. I fail to see what the above quote has to do with this argument.

tusenfem · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You have never explained to me what you think these formulas relate to (physically) if not the electrons, ion and photons of the EM field. I'm really curious now what you believe all this math relates to exactly?

MHD describes the plasma as a fluid, that is what the equations are about. Here is a page on MDH. Note that the equatios of motion deal with densities and not with particle. This is because the particle motion has bee averaged out (no gyro motion). MHD deals with BULK properties of the magnetoplasma, so there is many a process that cannot be described by MHD, anything at spatial scales smaller than the largest gyro radius or at temporal scales shorter than the longest gyro time cannot be described by MHD. Being an Alfvén adept, you should know these things.

Michael Mozina said:
Did you and Tim sit down and look that image on the DVD that I specified, the one where the loops come up through the photosphere and light up the photosphere in the process? I did list the timestamp of the image awhile back.

Appartently you forgot, we downloaded the DVD that you mentioned, and looked at the times that you mentioned. I wrote a message several pages ago where I went through what I saw on the DVD. It seemed that the times that you gave us were incorrect, or the specific DVD that you told us to download was the wrong one. Anyway, both Tim and I were unable to see the features that you were telling us to look at, as at the times you indicated the things you mentioned were not there. You were going to put images on your website, you said, then you could not grab images, which you can actually do easily, just by using the print screen function of your pc and then paste it into ACDC or Irfanview or whatever image program you have.

tusenfem · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
If it were "quasi-neutral", it would not create the persistent magnetic fields. Hoy. What doublespeak.

What kind of idiocy is this. Are you sure MM that you are not also Sol88? Because he stated exactly the same stupid thing that you claimed here.

Quasi-neutrality and currents are totally unrelated in the following way:

quasi-neutrality: Over large enough volumes, i.e. greater then the Debye sphere the total charge of the plasma is zero: Σ_x n_x q_x = 0

Current density: j = Σ_x n_x q_x v_x

where x runs over all ion species and the electrons. In the case of a simple proton-electron plasma the current density will simplify to the following:

j = n_e e (v_i - v_e)

So quasi-neutrality does not prevent the plasma from carrying a current.

tusenfem · Jul 28, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
The magnetic field can *never* be frozen into the kind of light plasma like we find in the solar atmosphere. There is no way to sustain these huge EM fields in light plasma without current flow. It's never going to happen. You folks can't and don't recognize "dark" electrons, because you can't even recognize the ones the light up the plasma like an arc welder.

First of all a "light plasma" is not a description of a plasma. Yeah I know it is supposed to be a plasma with lesser density then a "heavy plasma", but is could as well be a hydrogen plasma compared to an iron plasma. The whole term is useless.

Michael, what is the necessity for "frozen in" field lines? (if you don't know look it up on the page I linked above about the MDH equations)

On the other hand, the "enormous currents" that are flowing through the coronal loops on the sun cannot create the magnetic field of the loops they can only generate the twist that the loops obtain, unless you have a magical magnetic field generation mechanism in which currents can create magnetic fields in the directoin that they are flowing. Even Alfvén was not able to come up with such a phenomenon.

Electric universe theories here.

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator