Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
tusenfem said:
you keep on ignoring that MHD is an averaged theory. the equations for MHD do not have single particles in them they have densities.
Click to expand...

What exactly do you figure that density number relates to exactly?

The fact that MDH breaks down on the spatial scale of the Debye sphere implicity means that the processes near the reconnection region (which is in the electron diffusion region, that is the region where the electrons decouple from the magnetic field) cannot be described by MHD.
Click to expand...

So that's where you stuff in your "magnetic reconnection" stuff that is unrelated to MHD theory?

You can moan beg and scream what you like, but that is the way it is.
Click to expand...

I am not begging or screaming, I'm simply noting that the EM fields have their affect on "physical particles", and the EM field is simply composed of more "particles". This is simply a "particle reconnection' process, nothing more, nothing less. There are only three possible physical things that could or might connect, and all of them are "particles", even the carrier particle of the EM field.
 
tusenfem said:
Nobody expects a solar flare to happen below the photosphere.
Click to expand...

And yet stuff always comes flying up through the photosphere.

That stuff comes up has nothing to do with an "explosion", up to now I have never understood what you mean here. It is buoyancy that lets magnetic loops get out, shearing motion of the footpoints that drive currents in the loops and then reconnection the lets the loop "explode" ejecting matter in the form of a magnetic cloud.
Click to expand...

Then it should have blown material *INTO* the photosphere, from above the photosphere, not up and out of the photosphere.

There never is an explosion under the photosphere.
Click to expand...

Then how does that material get blown up, though, and away from the photosphere?

The explosion that takes place is clearly high above the surface of the sun and not happening in the photosphere.
Click to expand...

If it occurred high above the photosphere, it should have blown material *INTO*, not *AWAY FROM* the photosphere.

So, enough, gotta pay attention now, I might miss some more currents in space.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the "brightly lit" electrons that light up the solar atmosphere, you certainly will never see the "dark" electrons. :)

Did you ever find that image on April 15th, 2001 at 13:55:01? If so, how about describing it for us?
 
Michael Mozina said:
DeiRenDopa said:
(quoting MM's post, reply, in full, for the record)

As you wish.

MM's inability, so far, to provide any objective, independently verifiable, evidence to back his (outrageous, ridiculous) claim that "MHD also treats plasmas as particles and circuits as any of Alfven's later writings will attest" is hereby noted.
Click to expand...
DRD's inability to read or respond to the materials written by Alfven that have already been provided are so noted.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...eq=no_params&author=Alfven, Hannes&db_key=AST
Click to expand...
Back on 27 March, 2009, in another thread, I commented that "the discussion we should be having is not about Birkeland, the solar wind, inflation, Einstein's EFE, negative pressure, etc; rather it should be about what constitutes science (or at least physics)" (I copied this in a post of mine yesterday, #1362 in this thread).

From the last few days or so, it seems that the "not about" could be "MHD, whether Alfvén included particles in his expositions on MHD, what the DVDs show, whether the photosphere is opaque or not, etc", but otherwise my conclusion seems to still ring true.

With one caveat: there seems to be ample objective evidence that several of MM's posts, with key content, contain lies, and that at least some seem to be quite deliberate. If this is so, then before we could have a discussion about what constitutes physics we would need to agree on some ground rules concerning the acceptability of lying (or not) and the consequences of doing so.

Comments?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
With one caveat: there seems to be ample objective evidence that several of MM's posts, with key content, contain lies, and that at least some seem to be quite deliberate. If this is so, then before we could have a discussion about what constitutes physics we would need to agree on some ground rules concerning the acceptability of lying (or not) and the consequences of doing so.

Comments?
Click to expand...

Never wrestle with a pig.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
With one caveat: there seems to be ample objective evidence that several of MM's posts, with key content, contain lies, and that at least some seem to be quite deliberate.
Click to expand...

A specific example of what you consider to be a "lie" would be helpful. I find it is often difficult to completely explain my meaning at times in a single sentence, nor is this the best medium of communication. I find you folks to be notorious at twisting a single sentence out of context. When I attempt to explain my meaning, or clarify a point, you act as though I've changed my position.

It is the case for instance that while we can study fluids without knowing "much" about their "properties", even that would necessitate we know something about the "non rigid' nature of fluids as compared to solids. We may not be able to technologically know the "physical causes" of why the fluid is not rigid, but knowing these facts is only "helpful", not harmful to fully comprehending the whole physical process. Sol seems to think he can figure out the fluid dynamics without even knowing that the fluid is "not rigid'. I suppose it is possible to understand some property (fluid /not solid) and not understand why that property exists, but unlike you folks, I like to understand the physical causes of why things work, and how they physically work. I would never suggest is it irrelevant to know why the fluid is not rigid (composed of moving particles). IMO, knowing "why" something works is always a good thing, and ignorance of cause/effect relationships is never a good thing. Sure, it's possible to study fluids without knowing much about their chemical composition, but it's always good to know more facts. I really don't comprehend your notion that it's irrelevant.

As it relates to plasma, Alfven himself began his description of MHD theory by explaining how EM fields effect the movement of individual particles. He described their movements in the field. Once he explain the movement on one particle, he then applied it to something larger, like a whole "circuit". The notion of comprehending the movement of a single particle was paramount in his presentation of MHD theory and how he specifically applied MHD theory to objects in space.

If this is so, then before we could have a discussion about what constitutes physics we would need to agree on some ground rules concerning the acceptability of lying (or not) and the consequences of doing so.
Click to expand...

How about we do this right then and also discuss the consequences for the continued focus on individuals rather than on the physical science?

This whole conversation started because of my question about the "physical things" that might "reconnect" in plasma. Now you're all acting as though this issue doesn't even matter and some trivial detail in the discussion is all that matters.
 
Ziggurat said:
Mass per volume, of course.
Click to expand...

Mass of what? "Physical particles" by any chance? You seem to be ignoring the point here and fixating on trivia. The only physical things that exist in plasma are electrons, ions and photons. There are the only physical things that can "reconnect" in plasma, and that's been the whole point of my questions to sol and tusenfem, and all of you. There are only plasma particles and photons in the plasma that are capable of physically affecting anything. That is "particle reconnection" at it's most basic level. "Induction" has a proper scientific name and Alfven used and referred to it by it's proper name. He also worked from the "particle/circuit" perspective anytime he described plasmas in space. Why?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Mass of what? "Physical particles" by any chance?
Click to expand...

Not in a continuum model. Which MHD is.

You seem to be ignoring the point here and fixating on trivia.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Rather, I'm pointing out what should be blatantly obvious: a continuum model doesn't need and doesn't include anything about particles. That this continuum is an approximation of the collective behavior of individual particles is irrelevant: the model itself is independent of this fact.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify any of your ideas.
 
Ziggurat said:
Not in a continuum model. Which MHD is.
Click to expand...

Gah. Pure dodge. There is a *PHYSICAL CAUSE* and a "physical reality" that these formulas relate to. That continuum you're talking about is composed of many "particles". The physical conditions of those 'particles' determines the density, their "rigidity", etc. Ya, you don't have to deal with them at the level of a single particle, but you can and Alfven did look at the behaviors a single particle and *THEN* described something composed of "many" of these particles, like a whole "circuit".

The rush to trivia here seems to be motivated by fear because none of you want to deal with physical fact. There are only three three things physically capable of "reconnecting' in plasma, electrons, ions and photons. All of them are "particles". There is no way you can avoid the fact that this is "particle reconnection", so you refuse to acknowledge the whole thing is full of particles with individual kinetic energy.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gah. Pure dodge. There is a *PHYSICAL CAUSE* and a "physical reality" that these formulas relate to. That continuum you're talking about is composed of many "particles".
Click to expand...

Yes. But their individual properties are irrelevant in a continuum model. And MHD is a continuum model. Therefore the individual properties of protons and electrons is irrelevant to MHD.

The rush to trivia here seems to be motivated by fear because none of you want to deal with physical fact.
Click to expand...

No one is scared of you, Michael. Nor of your ideas. But you are quite scared of numbers yourself. You avoid them like the plaque. You have yet to quantify a single one of your ideas.
 
Ziggurat said:
Yes. But their individual properties are irrelevant in a continuum model.
Click to expand...

So every particle in plasma behaves exactly the same way in the same EM field?

And MHD is a continuum model. Therefore the individual properties of protons and electrons is irrelevant to MHD.
Click to expand...

How about the charge of the particle, the size of the particle, etc?

No one is scared of you, Michael. Nor of your ideas. But you are quite scared of numbers yourself. You avoid them like the plaque. You have yet to quantify a single one of your ideas.
Click to expand...

It's pointless IMO to get fixated on the math with you folks because all of your "errors" are related to your "poor understanding" of the actual "physics" of what is occurring. I can't teach you anything about math you don't already know. I can teach you about physics because none of you seem to understand the fact that your formulas relate to "real things". You keep acting as though your formulas do not relate to real physical particles with real physical properties.
 
Michael Mozina said:
His statement is false for two different reasons. MHD involves *LOTS* of single particles
Click to expand...
Nope. MHD is an approximation to aspects of the real physical universe. An approximation that works well in appropriate situation but explicitly ignores the characteristics of individual particles.

and his analogy is also false because the study of tsunamis requires some knowledge about the properties of the individual water molecules.
Click to expand...
No, it quite clearly doesn't.

Are the molecules 'frozen' in place or do they form a liquid for instance becomes an important question.
Click to expand...
I'd love you to find me somebody who studies ice Tsunamis.

The same is true of plasma particularly the charge of the particle in question. You can't ignore the properties of individual particles because they have an effect on the movements of the plasma.
Click to expand...
They're not ignored. They're replaced with homogenised, macroscopic quantities like pressure (!), conductivity, density

The theory, including Maxwell's equations, do allow us to predict the path of single particles. Alfven did it all the time.
Click to expand...
Go on then...

How so? Was Alfven incapable of applying Maxwell's equations to individual particles?
Click to expand...
Because MHD is, by definition, a macroscopic approximation.

The whole point of my objection to that term, and my preference for "particle reconnection" relates directly to the fact that there are only three "physical" particles to chose from to "reconnect" in plasma, specifically electrons, ion and photons. Period. These are the only "physical things" that are capable of "reconnecting" in plasma.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "physically reconnecting"? You can't just string electrons together.
Regardless, is still just a semantic argument.

There's an old saying "Sol can't see the forest for all the trees. In this case sol refuses to see the water molecules in the water, or the *PARTICLES* inside the plasma which these formulas attempt to model. The whole conversation began when I asked tusenfem what he thought these formulas related to if not the plasma particles and the carrier particles of the EM field. These formulas all relate to one of three things, electrons, ions and the carrier particles of the EM field. Period. That's all there is to choose from.
Click to expand...
Nope. Maxwell's equations relate to electric and magnetic fields. The Navier-Stokes equations relate to fluids as macroscopic entities.
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's pointless IMO to get fixated on the math with you folks because all of your "errors" are related to your "poor understanding" of the actual "physics" of what is occurring. I can't teach you anything about math you don't already know. I can teach you about physics because none of you seem to understand the fact that your formulas relate to "real things". You keep acting as though your formulas do not relate to real physical particles with real physical properties.
Click to expand...

Errm, Michael. The Navier-Stokes equations involve pressure. You have illustrated to us all excellently how you have no understanding of what pressure is. Why should we possibly think you could teach us anything about this?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gah. Pure dodge. There is a *PHYSICAL CAUSE* and a "physical reality" that these formulas relate to.
Click to expand...
There is a physical reality that these formulas approximate. These formulas explicitly ignore the motions of individual particles because trying to calculate the motions of 10somebignumber is impossible.

That continuum you're talking about is composed of many "particles". The physical conditions of those 'particles' determines the density, their "rigidity", etc. Ya, you don't have to deal with them at the level of a single particle, but you can and Alfven did look at the behaviors a single particle and
*THEN* described something composed of "many" of these particles, like a whole "circuit".
Click to expand...
How many is "many"?

The rush to trivia here seems to be motivated by fear because none of you want to deal with physical fact.
Click to expand...
The only one ignoring fact is you: MHD is a continuum theory.

There are only three three things physically capable of "reconnecting' in plasma, electrons, ions and photons. All of them are "particles". There is no way you can avoid the fact that this is "particle reconnection", so you refuse to acknowledge the whole thing is full of particles with individual kinetic energy.
Click to expand...
Yes Michael. If you define "reconnection" as something that must happen with particles then it is tautologically true that reconnection must happen with particles. This, however, gets you nowhere.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So every particle in plasma behaves exactly the same way in the same EM field?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? No, of course not. But either that difference won't matter, or the continuum model will break down. But within a continuum model like MHD, no such differences will be accounted for.

How about the charge of the particle, the size of the particle, etc?
Click to expand...

All irrelevant to the continuum model.

It's pointless IMO to get fixated on the math with you folks because all of your "errors" are related to your "poor understanding" of the actual "physics" of what is occurring. I can't teach you anything about math you don't already know. I can teach you about physics because none of you seem to understand the fact that your formulas relate to "real things". You keep acting as though your formulas do not relate to real physical particles with real physical properties.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you for formulas, Michael. I'm asking you for numbers. You know, the things that quantify those "real physical properties". I'm asking you to make a quantitative prediction about the real physical properties that are behind your ideas. And you consistently refuse to do so. Why? If you've already made any such predictions, why not share them? If you aren't willing to do that, why are you even here? And if you haven't made any quantitative predictions based on your ideas, well, isn't it about time you did? It would be quite sad, really, if you turned out to be right but couldn't convince anyone because you never did even the most basic calculations to quantify your ideas.

Actually, it would be sad if you're wrong too: it would mean you've wasted years of your life chasing illusions, when calculations might have revealed your errors long ago. Is that why you won't do it, Michael? Are you scared to learn how useless so much of your life has been? :rub:
 
Tubbythin said:
I'd love you to find me somebody who studies ice Tsunamis.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point, you won't find one. The properties of the "particles" matter. We may not understand why the fluid isn't rigid, but the fact it's not rigid is what allows for "tsunamis" to form in the liquid. You can be ignorant of the "particles" of water that are in the tsunami and still project the speed of the tsunami, but were it not for the "particles" in the water, and the fact they aren't "solid', you wouldn't have anything to study.

They're not ignored. They're replaced with homogenised, macroscopic quantities like pressure (!), conductivity, density
Click to expand...

They are "modeled with" the things you mentioned. You've simply "homogenized" the particle interaction process.

What do you mean by "physically reconnecting"?
Click to expand...

I mean something is creating serious particle acceleration in the process you are calling "magnetic reconnection". What is the 'physical cause' of this acceleration? Physical *things* and only physical things can "disconnect" and 'reconnect". Even the carrier particle of the EM field is itself a "particle".

Nope. Maxwell's equations relate to electric and magnetic fields.
Click to expand...

Yet Alfven applied these equations to individual particles.

The Navier-Stokes equations relate to fluids as macroscopic entities.
Click to expand...

Which approximates the physical behaviors of physical particles.
 
Ziggurat said:
Did I say that? No, of course not. But either that difference won't matter, or the continuum model will break down. But within a continuum model like MHD, no such differences will be accounted for.
Click to expand...

Alfven accounts for them as the movement of particles in circuits.

All irrelevant to the continuum model.
Click to expand...

It's a "continuum" of "particles".

I'm not asking you for formulas, Michael. I'm asking you for numbers. You know, the things that quantify those "real physical properties". I'm asking you to make a quantitative prediction about the real physical properties that are behind your ideas.
Click to expand...

Why? Bruce made many such calculations and predictions. Did you read them? What's wrong with them?

And you consistently refuse to do so. Why?
Click to expand...

Because I see zero evidence that calculations or predictions matter one iota to you. If so, you would be happy with Bruce's presentation of solar discharge processes, or you would have picked out the flaw in his math. You (collectively) did neither. The same is true of Alfven's presentation of solar and magnetospheric events. He did calculations. Did you read them or respond to them or pick out the flaw in his calculations?

It seems to me that the only reason you want me to bark math for you is in the hope you can find an error in my math and thereby ridicule EU theory. That would be irrational behavior of course, but you all seem intent on doing it anyway. I'd like to see you deal with Bruce's numbers or Birkeland's numbers or Alfven's numbers. Since you won't, why should I believe that my math will suddenly sway you?

If you've already made any such predictions, why not share them?
Click to expand...

Bruce did that. Did he share them for you? Did you address his material at all?
 
Tubbythin said:
Yes Michael. If you define "reconnection" as something that must happen with particles then it is tautologically true that reconnection must happen with particles. This, however, gets you nowhere.
Click to expand...

Not so. This gets me to the point that you will be forced to accept that "magnetic reconnection" and "particle reconnection" are exactly the same physical process.
 
Tubbythin said:
Errm, Michael. The Navier-Stokes equations involve pressure. You have illustrated to us all excellently how you have no understanding of what pressure is. Why should we possibly think you could teach us anything about this?
Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that pressure is caused by 'physical' things?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Alfven accounts for them as the movement of particles in circuits.
Click to expand...

He can describe it however he likes, but the movement of particles is not an input into, or an output of, ANY MHD equation.

Why? Bruce made many such calculations and predictions. Did you read them? What's wrong with them?
Click to expand...

Did Bruce predict the sun was made of a solid shell? Did he claim that this shell experienced cathode refrigeration via the solar winds? If so, then you are free to post his numbers to quantify the parameters of that model. But I don't think he did, and I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase trying to hunt those numbers down. If he did, you should be able to find the numbers much more quickly than I could. If not, then whatever it is that Bruce did, it doesn't quantify your model.

Because I see zero evidence that calculations or predictions matter one iota to you.
Click to expand...

Of course not. That's why I've actually done those calculations, and posted them. Because they don't matter to me. Who, exactly, do you expect to believe this argument?

If so, you would be happy with Bruce's presentation of solar discharge processes
Click to expand...

Did he calculate the parameters of your proposed cathode refrigeration? No, I don't think he did. Go on, prove me wrong.

It seems to me that the only reason you want me to bark math for you is in the hope you can find an error in my math and thereby ridicule EU theory.
Click to expand...

I don't need you to do the math in order to ridicule EU theories. I can do the math myself for that. In fact, I have. On multiple occasions. No, my request for you to present numbers has a different purpose.

I'd like to see you deal with Bruce's numbers or Birkeland's numbers or Alfven's numbers.
Click to expand...

Neither of them proposed the solar wind as a mechanism for cathode refrigeration to keep the sun's solid shell from vaporizing.

Twist and turn, twist and turn. You can't quantify any of your ideas. Not even using other people's numbers. Which I would be OK with, if you ever did that. But you haven't.
 
Ziggurat said:
He can describe it however he likes, but the movement of particles is not an input into, or an output of, ANY MHD equation.
Click to expand...

Really?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
How did the aurora form again according to Alfven?

Did Bruce predict the sun was made of a solid shell?
Click to expand...

No, he predicted that discharges occur in the solar atmosphere. I can't fight every battle at once. Let's focus on the things that are easy to see and that are well documented mathematically for awhile, shall we?

Twist and turn, twist and turn. You can't quantify any of your ideas. Not even using other people's numbers. Which I would be OK with, if you ever did that. But you haven't.
Click to expand...

I did do that. I did that with Bruce's work and Alfven's work as it relates to solar discharge activity. You refuse to read it or address it, and it's clearly the most "visible" and obvious thing visible on the sun in the higher energy wavelengths. If you can't pick out "flyiing electrons and flying ions" in a satellite image, there is no way in hell I'll ever teach you how to pick out the surface. Baby steps. Lets start with the solar discharges. Did you ever download the DVD and look at the frame about thirty minutes in on April 15th, 2001, at 13:55:01?
 
Why neon for your "mostly neon" photosphere

Lets return to the Iron Sun model and see if Micheal Mozina can actually quantify any of his ideas.
First asked 30 July 2009
You assert that the photosphere is "mostly neon". You have still not told us what "mostly" means but we will ignore this for now.

What physical properties of the photosphere show that it contains "mostly neon" rather than for example "mostly fluorine"?

It cannot be the spectrum of neon since neon glows reddish-orange in discharge tubes (it has emission lines mostly in the red ared of the visible spectrum).
P.S. Fluorescent lights (which you cited before) emit white light light from the fluorescence of the phosphor in their coatings which is excited by light from mercury (they can contain neon as a filler gas).
 
Michael Mozina said:
Really?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
How did the aurora form again according to Alfven?
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha! Let me quote from that article, bottom of the 1st page:

"Since the magnetopause layer has a thickness on the order of the ion gyroradius, it is not possible within the constraints of conventional megnetohydrodynamics to derive this current system in terms of the adjacent plasmas."

In other words, he's stepping outside of MHD at the very beginning of the paper. Unlike you, Alfven understands that MHD is a continuum approximation, and so he understands its limitations. So how, precisely, is this paper supposed to support your position about how MHD treats individual particle behavior?

I did do that. I did that with Bruce's work and Alfven's work as it relates to solar discharge activity.
Click to expand...

Nowhere does Alfven make any predictions of, or even provide any description of, your proposed cathode refrigeration. I doubt Bruce does either.

Lets start with the solar discharges. Did you ever download the DVD and look at the frame about thirty minutes in on April 15th, 2001, at 13:55:01?
Click to expand...

I have no intention of wasting my bandwidth downloading a DVD. Especially if the only contents are pictures which other posters indicate show nothing, based on techniques that you have demonstrated you don't understand. And none of which would actually quantify any of the fundamental parameters of the cathode refrigeration model you are proposing, even if your interpretation of them was correct.

And you still haven't quantified a single one of your ideas.
 
DVD Images

Michael Mozina said:
The specific DVD file I would like you to download is the one that is marked "FlaresDVD.img". ... http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/DVDs/
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
Have you watched the DVD yet?
Click to expand...
Tim Thompson said:
Yes, but I don't know what I am supposed to be looking for. The master menu shows "X Flares Part 1", "X Flares Part 2", "Filament Flares" and "Flare Evolution" Lots of stuff. So which menu am I supposed to look in to see the magic? Each of the menu entries is arranged by date, so I need to know the menu and the date.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
The last I heard, Tim had not burned the image to DVD yet or seen the images I cited or selected and had not seen the April 15th 2001 image with the 13:55:01 time stamp.
Click to expand...
The file "FlaresDVD.img" does not have any video with that date. I also note that you have so far specified time stamps 13:55:01, 15:55:01 and 13:51:01. So was I supposed to download something other than the file you specified? And what are the real date & time stamp supposed to be?

I also repeat (emphasis mine) ...
Michael Mozina said:
A) the bases of the loops light up the photosphere as they come through the photosphere and the loop comes up *THROUGH* the photosphere.
B) the mass ejections from a flare blow material up and through the photosphere during the flare process.
Click to expand...

Tim Thompson said:
What makes you think you are looking at the photosphere? The base I see is the chromosphere, not the photosphere.
Click to expand...
Of course, the base I see might just as well be the bottom of the transition zone, or top of the chromosphere. But what I really want to address is that you identify the base of all the images as the photosphere in a very matter-of-fact manner, as if it were already determined. I want to know how you know that it is in fact the photosphere. Is that just a blind assertion on your part, or is there some real reason for saying so?

The images in the FlaresDVD file do not look like white light to me, they all look like EUV images. But I can't verify that at the moment, as the "about the DVD" information does not say.
 
Michael Mozina said:
That's the whole point, you won't find one. The properties of the "particles" matter. We may not understand why the fluid isn't rigid, but the fact it's not rigid is what allows for "tsunamis" to form in the liquid. You can be ignorant of the "particles" of water that are in the tsunami and still project the speed of the tsunami, but were it not for the "particles" in the water, and the fact they aren't "solid', you wouldn't have anything to study.
Click to expand...
So you agree that we don't need to know anything about particles to model tsunamis?

They are "modeled with" the things you mentioned. You've simply "homogenized" the particle interaction process.
Click to expand...
... so the individual particles are completely ignored.

I mean something is creating serious particle acceleration in the process you are calling "magnetic reconnection". What is the 'physical cause' of this acceleration? Physical *things* and only physical things can "disconnect" and 'reconnect". Even the carrier particle of the EM field is itself a "particle".
Click to expand...
What's a "physical thing"?

Yet Alfven applied these equations to individual particles.
Click to expand...
Are you forgetting what I was responding to? I'll remind you:
These formulas all relate to one of three things, electrons, ions and the carrier particles of the EM field. Period. That's all there is to choose from.
Click to expand...

Which approximates the physical behaviors of physical particles.
Click to expand...
They approximate the behaviour of fluids.
 
Where is the "mostly fluorine" layer

First asked 30 July 2009
The post below evokes another question.
According to you all of the elements in the Sun are "mass separated" into layers according to their mass, e.g. your iron crust, "mostly neon" photosphere, etc.
Fluorine is lighter than neon. Thus you must expect that there is a layer of fluorine above your "mostly neon" photosphere, i.e. in the chromosphere, transition zone or corona.

What is your physical evidence for this "mostly fluorine" layer?

For example: how much fluorine does spectroscopy show in the corona from the absorption lines in the photosphere light?

Reality Check said:
Lets return to the Iron Sun model and see if Micheal Mozina can actually quantify any of his ideas.
First asked 30 July 2009
You assert that the photosphere is "mostly neon". You have still not told us what "mostly" means but we will ignore this for now.

What physical properties of the photosphere show that it contains "mostly neon" rather than for example "mostly fluorine"?

It cannot be the spectrum of neon since neon glows reddish-orange in discharge tubes (it has emission lines mostly in the red ared of the visible spectrum).
P.S. Fluorescent lights (which you cited before) emit white light light from the fluorescence of the phosphor in their coatings which is excited by light from mercury (they can contain neon as a filler gas).
Click to expand...
 
Tubbythin said:
So you agree that we don't need to know anything about particles to model tsunamis?
Click to expand...

I really can't see how you got that impression from my response. At *MINIMUM* you would have to know there is some difference between solids and liquids. Yes, I suppose one could remain completely oblivious as to the particle aspects of atoms and do some mathematical modeling but then you wouldn't have a clue what's *physically* happening inside the wave at the level of particle physics. In other words, you'd be ignorant of important cause/effect relationships, particularly why solids and liquids behave differently.

... so the individual particles are completely ignored.
Click to expand...

No, they are "compensated for" inside the formulas with descriptions like "density" (of particles).

What's a "physical thing"?
Click to expand...

A "physical thing" is something that shows up in a controlled empirical experiment like an electron, an ion, a photon, a neutrino, etc.
 
Tim Thompson said:
So let me just be clear about this: You, Michael Mozina, explicitly agree that magnetic fields and electric fields are not physical things? Is that really true?
Click to expand...

No. FYI the image is certainly on the DVD. It is dated (on the left bottom corner of the image) April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01. The reason why I'm sure it's coming through the photosphere should be clear to you when you observe the shape of the light emissions at the bases of the loops and their connection to the sunspots in that image.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No. FYI the image is certainly on the DVD. It is dated (on the left bottom corner of the image) April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01. The reason why I'm sure it's coming through the photosphere should be clear to you when you observe the shape of the light emissions at the bases of the loops and their connection to the sunspots in that image.
Click to expand...
Hi MM: For some reason the people who have downloaded FlaresDVD.img can find no documentation that the images are in visible light (and so are of the photosphere). Tim Thompson states "they all look like EUV images".

You must have found documentation that the images are in visible light.
Could you please post a link to them ot point out where the documentation is in the DVD?

ETA:
Rather than trusting your dubious citations I went to the TRACE web site. The files that make up the DVD are listed in folders under http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/
And the only files I can find for April 15th, 2001 are:
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/filaments/T171_2001Apr15SurgeN0_Cap.mov
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/filaments/T171_2001Apr15SurgeWO_Cap.mov

Guess what MM? T171 = the TRACE 171A pass band, i.e. activity in the corona not the photosphere. Most of the DVD files are for the 171A or 195A pass bands.

But it looks like you are just incompetent rather then lying about the movie.
There is a list of movies that includes:
Movie 32 (description): X14.4 flare in AR9514, 15 April 2001, in 171Å.
Movie 33 (description): X14.4 flare in AR9514, 15 April 2001, in 1600Å.
Click to expand...
The second movie is not in "white light" but does include plasma emitting light at the termperature of the photosphere. There is however no frame timestamped "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01".
It is obvious that you are looking at the first movie (TRACE 171A pass band, i.e. activity in the corona not the photosphere) which does havve a frame timestamped at "April 15th, 2001, 13:55:01".

Both movies show loops forming an arcade and then an explosion from the arcade.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
So you agree that we don't need to know anything about particles to model tsunamis?
Click to expand...

You know, the more I think about the way you worded this question, and they way this conversation has gone recently, the more I realize it sort of exemplifies the problem with your "understanding" of things at the level of actual particle physics.

Sure, someone probably *COULD* remain ignorant as to the cause of the movement of the water and correctly manipulate mathematics at the macroscopic level. That doesn't mean one is *obligated* to remain ignorant as to the actual "cause" at the level of particle physics for all time. By understanding that water is composed of particles (molecules) that are in a liquid form, we have a deeper, broader, and "greater" understanding of the whole physical process. Sure, one can manipulate the formulas of the waves and have no understanding of this events at the level of particle physics, but that's my whole complaint about you folks. You *INSIST* that we remain ignorant of the fact that the water is composed of particles, and that plasma is made of particles too. My whole point is that you *DON'T* understand the physics at the level of particle physics because you *WON'T* look at the "particle" side of MHD theory. Yes, Alfven describe the "particle" orientation of MHD theory as viewed from the perspective of E rather than B, what he called the "field" side of MHD theory.

While I seriously doubt I could ever teach you anything about the math, I can explain to you what your math relates to at the level of particle physics because I'm willing and able to see the water as particles and the plasma as group of various particles. So was Alfven.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
By understanding that water is composed of particles (molecules) that are in a liquid form, we have a deeper, broader, and "greater" understanding of the whole physical process.
Click to expand...

Obviously. The fact that you need to say that, that you think we - or anyone - doesn't agree with that, is.... yet more evidence of how totally you fail to grasp this topic.

Sure, one can manipulate the formulas of the waves and have no understanding of this events at the level of particle physics, but that's my whole complaint about you folks. You *INSIST* that we remain ignorant of the fact that the water is composed of particles, and that plasma is made of particles too.
Click to expand...

MHD insists on that, not us. That's what MHD is. That's what the "H" means. That's why it's an approximation rather than an exact theory.

All you have to do is glance at the MHD equations to see that this is the case. And even for someone incapable of understanding equations, it's obvious from the fact that the complete equations for hydrodynamics were written down before the molecular nature of water was understood.
 
Reality Check said:
Hi MM: For some reason the people who have downloaded FlaresDVD.img can find no documentation that the images are in visible light (and so are of the photosphere).
Click to expand...

Evidently they can't navigate a DVD menu. They are clearly marked as WL for white light. When you eventually do download the DVD (I'll shame you into it eventually), go to the menu, select "Movie Controls", pick "X Flares Part 1".

You will see the movie in question is marked "2001 April 9 WL". Evidently that view spans several days. The other (close up) view of that flare is marked "April 15 WL".

I strongly suggest that you give up your "argument from ignorance" approach to science and you actually look at the images and read the materials I suggest before you comment on them. Sheesh.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I strongly suggest that you give up your "argument from ignorance" approach to science and you actually look at the images and read the materials I suggest before you comment on them. Sheesh.
Click to expand...


Spoken by a true champion of the argument from ignorance technique.

Now when do you figure to take down that running difference graph from your web site, Michael? You can't show the experiment that supports your ridiculous claim about seeing something physical in that graph, something which, even if it existed, would be thousands of kilometers away from where the data for the graph was taken. The thing you think you see would be, according to your own claim, below several thousand kilometers of opaque plasma, which would render it invisible under any circumstances. And it has been well established that the graph itself is just a visual representation of a series of simple mathematical calculations, not a picture. Yet you claim to see something, a solid physical thing in it. But oddly enough, you aren't willing or able to support that claim with any more than whining and crying?

I'm sure you'll agree that claiming something as evidence when in fact it isn't, is dishonest. Take down the running difference graph or show us the objective method you use to see that stuff so many thousands of kilometers away from the source data used to make the graph, Michael. Then when you support your claim, or get past that huge error and take that graphic down, we can move on to the next item. Why is this so tough for you?
 
Reality Check said:
But it looks like you are just incompetent rather then lying about the movie.
Click to expand...

This comment about lying and incompetence comes from the guy that hasn't even bothered to download or watch the DVD yet. Talk about incompetence. Holy cow.

You know before you even "hint" at calling me a liar don't you think you really should review the materials I suggest? Don't you think you owe me an apology? I was neither incompetent or a liar, but you could not possibly know that because you didn't do your homework (AGAIN!).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom