Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I demand this post be removed. It's pure personal attack. You folks have no real scientific arguments. Therefore you all attack PEOPLE! What PATHETIC behavior.
Last edited:
Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
I demand this post be removed. It's pure personal attack. You folks have no real scientific arguments. Therefore you all attack PEOPLE! What PATHETIC behavior.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
If we stick with what's published (and available to all to read), the degree to which your ideas and the electric Sun ones of Thornhill, Scott, and Talbott are mutually incompatible (not exclusive) is absolute.
Why? Because, in their ideas, the Sun has no significant internal source of energy.
Here's an example of why your ideas don't even come close to being accurately called astrophysics (or similar).
Whatever Alfvén's model of the Sun is, it is mutually incompatible with the idea that there's a solid (or rigid) surface - composed of iron, or some iron alloy/compound/mixture - beneath the photosphere. Whatever shortcomings there are in Alfvén's published work, they do not include contemplating gross violations of the laws of thermodynamics.
(there are, in this thread, already many lengthy discussions - if they can be called that - of Birkeland's ideas; no point in me repeating them here).
So, in "the solar model on my website", what is it that - predominantly - powers the Sun?
What's its voltage (with respect to what)?
What is the estimated current?
May I infer from this that you've not actually read what Peratt has published, in terms of ideas on an electric Sun?That IMO is the MOST IMPORTANT difference between Alfven's model and Birkeland's model. The mass flows in the solar wind patterns tend to suggest the flow is continuously away from the sun except for rare circumstances. That's true at the poles as well, perhaps PARTICULARLY true since the solar wind move FASTER in the polar regions than near the equator.
I've never asked him that question actually. I would "assume" that he favors Alfven's basic model. I'm not sure how he would justify the lack of plasma inflow at the poles, which would in fact be my first question to him.DeiRenDopa said:
Let me see if I have understood you correctly.Sure. In Birkeland's "cathode sun" model, current carrying "loops" are in face an "experimental prediction" of his working simulation. They are in fact a primary means to FALSIFY his cathode sun theories were they to be absent in the solar atmosphere. That would pretty much shoot his theory dead on the spot. The other key "prediction" from his experiments relates to the flow of particles (predominantly away from the sun), and the interactions with the heliosphere which he simply referred to as "space".
The flow of matter in the solar atmosphere was "predicted" by Birkeland's model to work in VERY specific ways. There's no way to continue to accept his model for instance were those high energy coronal loops ABSENT from solar satellite images. A cathode sun operating at 600 million volts damn well BETTER produce "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere as he predicted, or his predictions were worthless. Fortunately he hit the nail on the head.
Surrounding the metal sphere, in Birkeland's lab, was a gas. That gas had, throughout, essentially the same temperature and pressure (except within any discharges), and contained no plasma (again, except within any discharges).
The real Sun is surrounded by a plasma, whose temperature, pressure, and degree of ionization varies by many orders of magnitude, over distances of a few solar radii.
You have done no experiments, no simulations, and no theoretical calculations to show - in quantitative terms - that the former is a reasonable approximation to the latter, in any respect whatsoever.
Is that about right?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Well, that may have been true in the past. It *MAY* still be true today, but the EU community as a whole has been "maturing" over time and I've personally learned a LOT over the past 7 or 8 years. My beliefs are not static over time, so I don't presume that to be true of others.
That's true. It's pretty much a "standard" solar model with electrical interactions between the surface of the photosphere and the heliosphere. If Birkeland's model turns out not to be true, I would prefer that over 'standard' solar theory. As I said, it's a 1st runner up model IMO.
A cooler, more dense layer under a neon layer of plasma, no more violates the laws of thermodynamics than the fact that the chromosophere is hotter than the photosphere and the corona is hotter than both.
Well, at the moment, I'd have to say that the evidence favors fusion, certainly as the "primary" energy source. If things in the neutrino world keep "changing over time" I think fission could make a comeback.
600 Million Volts with respect to the heliosphere.
That depends on the cycle.
No. I simply haven't talked to him RECENTLY. I have no idea what he believes RIGHT NOW. I'd have to assume he favors a plasma sun based on his writings.
The sphere is discharging to the walls of the experiment creating "dusty plasma" throughout the chamber. Crank up the voltages and current to corresponding numbers suggested by Birkeland and I guarantee you that plasma will surround the sphere.
True. The "best" results that Birkeland actually achieved in terms of creating plasma LAYERS took place when filled the chamber with pressurized gasses rather than in pure vacuum chambers. Layers formed around the sun, just as we see them in satellite images today. "Jets" formed too, as did "electrical discharges" in large looped shapes, just as we observe in satellite images today.
Nope. Then again, you don't care about anything I've published, do you?
http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1
Last edited:
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Oliver Manuel is welcome to join this forum if he would like to contribute to the discussion or defend his notions about the Sun. I'm not alone in my opinion about his work. It is well supported in several discussions on the BAUT forum from several years ago. I am also not aware that he has updated his papers to rectify the failures of his claims to match physical reality or to eliminate the falsehoods which, as I recall, were pointed out in those discussions.
But, being that his paper on the CNO Cycles uses the idea of electrical discharge loops as a foregone conclusion, and the paper does not describe the physics of those alleged discharges or even quantitatively support their existence, that paper does not lend support to the electric Sun conjecture. And neither his Cosmic Nuclear Cycle paper or his Sun's Origin paper discuss an electrical Sun at all.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
You have no right to attack INDIVIDUALS! If this board is moderated FAIRLY, your claims about his work should be removed and you too should get some time off for piss poor behavior. I doubt you personally have ANY background in particle physics theory. Your claims about his work are meaningless. They are pure personal attacks because you personally are incapable of NOT using sleazy debate tactics.
MM, I've read a handful of Oliver Manuel's papers. I've even heard him speak at an APS meeting. Based on my scientific assessment of Manuel's 'work', when GeeMack says
I agree wholeheartedly. You have no way of confirming this, but my physics research overlaps to an uncannily large degree with Manuel's. I mostly do experimental nuclear, particle, and neutrino physics but I've also forayed into stellar interiors (and unusual nuclear physics therein), the solar wind, and geochemistry (including meteorites). If you can find a point in Manuel's "model" that you think is worth defending, let's see it.
I agree wholeheartedly. You have no way of confirming this, but my physics research overlaps to an uncannily large degree with Manuel's. I mostly do experimental nuclear, particle, and neutrino physics but I've also forayed into stellar interiors (and unusual nuclear physics therein), the solar wind, and geochemistry (including meteorites). If you can find a point in Manuel's "model" that you think is worth defending, let's see it.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
So "anything goes" in terms on this board in terms of personal attacks WITHOUT SO MUCH AS CITING A SINGLE FLAW IN HIS WORK, as long as it's a MAINSTREAMER doing the attacks? OMG. This place is a haters cult. If I said stuff like that, I'd be banned or at least given time off for that behavior. Where's the consistency in the applications of the rules around here?
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
It is ABUNDANTLY clear that the term "crackpot" is your hater's cult's version of calling an atheist "evil" for poking holes in someone's mainstream theistic belief systems. The application of the rules is either consistent, or it's not. Which is it going to be around here? Are you going to debate FAIRLY or not? What does GM know about nuclear physics?
As long as the person being "attacked" is not a member of this board, then the "Patrick rule" applies.
In other words, as long as Patrick can attack astronauts and not be banned for it, then anything DOES "go".
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Sure I do. I showed you something like SEVEN key high energy emission processes, including x-rays, gamma rays, and even NEUTRON CAPTURE SIGNATURES that were directly associated (IN THE LAB) with "electrical discharges". I think the hater side showed me exactly *ONE* of the seven things on my list that was done with "magnetic reconnection". The burned of proof has nothing to do with EU hater beliefs.
More than MM knows about electromagnetism. Seriously, MM, you are the last person on Earth declaring that someone is unqualified to discuss physics. You, for example, have repeatedly failed to understand the mere definition of a field line, or the slightest whiff of the vector-calculus-based equations that govern them, yet you expect people to read your opinions about magnetic reconnection.
Whether or not GM is a credentialed expert on this point, the fact is that he's right. Whether or not you are a credentialed expert on this point, you are wrong.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Your whole argument is one giant personal attack. Did you even personally acknowledge that work by Alfven in his double layer paper, or Mann and Onel in their paper that linked Alfven's ideas to solar satellite images? No. Did you find any mathematical error in any of those two papers? NO! You don't care about the math ben. You use that to ATTACK PEOPLE, in this case me. What's the point of presenting you with math that supports these ideas if you never read and acknowledge that math and that support?
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
MM, this point has been made, before, in this thread and others, many times, so I'm surprised to find myself making it again.
What you, or Thornhill, Scott, Talbott, or anyone else believes is irrelevant.
The only thing which is relevant, to a science-based discussion, is what is published, in a form that is accessible and verifiable (as in one could - in principle - verify that the authors listed are, in fact, the authors).
If you know of any such publication, by Thornhill, Scott, and/or Talbott, which presents their electric Sun ideas and shows that the Sun has a significant internal source of energy, please do so.
If you can't, then my statement is accurate.
None of which is, of course, relevant to anything Alfvén wrote (with respect to your electric Sun ideas being mutually inconsistent with whatever ideas he had, concerning the Sun).
If you can point to anything in Alfvén's published works which shows he made a case that the optical depth of the photosphere, at a physical depth of several thousand km, was ~<1, please do so.
That's good to read.Well, at the moment, I'd have to say that the evidence favors fusion, certainly as the "primary" energy source. If things in the neutrino world keep "changing over time" I think fission could make a comeback.
And your evidence for this conclusion is ...?
Recall, this is what you wrote: "The sun isn't simply a homopolar generator as Alfven believed, it does in fact act as a "cathode in space"". In other words, it's your claim (and part of your electric Sun idea).
What is its average, over several cycles (ballpark estimate will do)?
What is a typical range (again, ballpark estimates will do)?
Recall, this is an answer to my question "What is the estimated current?"
So we can leave Peratt out of this discussion entirely, can't we?
What is this ""dusty plasma""? As you've used double quotes, I presume you intend to give the term a special meaning, quite different from the usual (textbook) meaning.
Words are cheap MM.
Have you done an experiment to confirm this? As far as I know, no.
Have you done a simulation to confirm this? As far as I know, no.
Have you done some theoretical work, modelling perhaps, to confirm this? As far as I know, no.
In short, nothing objective, nothing independently verifiable.
As these are foundational components of science (at least astrophysics), whatever this part of your idea is, it isn't science.
However, the physical conditions - gas composition, pressure gradients, temperature gradients, radiation field, etc - of his ""best"" results are all many, many orders of magnitude different from those of the real Sun, aren't they.
Um, I know what's been published with your name on it, MM.
My statement - "you have done no experiments, no simulations, and no theoretical calculations to show - in quantitative terms - that the former is a reasonable approximation to the latter, in any respect whatsoever" - refers explicitly, and only, to the degree to which the conditions in Birkeland's lab experiment replicate those of the real Sun's atmosphere (i.e. above the photosphere).
In none of your publications do you present results of any experiments you have conducted (relevant to my statement), nor any simulations you have run, nor ...
So I guess we may conclude that, by omission, you confirmed the veracity of my statement.
Nice one.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
You cannot demand anything:
Oliver Manuel
- Is a crackpot.
- His solar model is wholly impossible (a neutron star in the middle of the Sun
!). It ignores the actual physics. - His papers are constructed, at least in part, on complete lies - one of which is your delusion that the Sun has a surface with mountains on it.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
It's also utterly irrelevant since Birkeland's solar model *DOES NOT EXIST* and his ideas *ARE NOT AN ELECTRIC SUN FANTASY*.
Birkeland speculated that the Sun could be powered by radioactive decay of uranium, radium, etc., i.e. fission. He was wrong.
Here is the post by DeiRenDopa again. No mention of Birkeland. Just the list of Electric Sun cranks.
Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa
This is, to me, one of the most astonishing things about this (Electric Sun) idea.
Proponents of it (the Electric Sun idea) have been all over internet fora, for many years, screaming, yelling, whining, spamming, posting links to youtube videos, posting long and wordy comments, etc, etc, etc (i.e. not just MM, not just in this forum).
And yet, among those tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of posts, and millions of words, not even once has anyone posted anything remotely resembling mathematical (and that includes just plain quantitative) support for the core concept (i.e. that the Sun is - predominantly - powered by giant, interstellar (or intergalactic) Birkeland currents)!
Of course, this hasn't stopped the principals - Thornhill, Scott, Talbott, Tresman, and maybe one or two others - from making promises (of varying degrees of specificity) that exactly such support is being (furiously) worked on, and its publication is just around the corner (as in, a month or so).
In one sense this is quite remarkable: how have the principals been able to so successfully keep the con going for so long?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
About THREE DECADES between the deficit dicovery and the detection of the missing neutrinos.
How much time should they have waited before throwing away the known and tested laws of physics?
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
There is no Birkeland solar model so you are stuck with Alfvén's model.
That is a problem for you because his model is ... the standard solar model
!Alfvén never published a solar model.
You may have the delusion that his work on solar flares is a solar model. It is not.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Once again you deluded about the existence of a Birkeland solar model.
You are also fooling yourself about fission being a viable energy source. If you knew anything about fission then you would know that it cannot happen in the Sun. There are no nuclear reactors floating around in it!
You may be thinking about natural fission, i.e. radioactive decay. IN that case provide us with the calculations that you made in determine that it is a "minority" contributor.
By "minority" do you mean:
- 0.00000000000000000000000000001% of the energy output or
- 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of the energy output or
- 0.000000000000000000000000001% of the energy output or
- 0.00000000000000000000000001% of the energy output or
- some other number?
You're obviously unaware of this history.
When Ray Davis solar neutrino data "came up short" in the 1960s and 1970s, people did try alternative solar models. They tried adjusting the Sun's core temperature, composition, opacity. They tried adjusting nuclear reaction rates. They tried adjusting the laws of GR. They tried hypothesizing new particles, like axions, that transported energy in different ways. They tried magnetic fields. They tried hypothesizing that neutrinos had mass and changed flavor.
You know what they did with these hypotheses? They tested them. They tested them in every last numerical detail that was available. There's no point having a vague idea along the lines of "maybe there's more carbon in the solar core"---you have to apply the laws of physics, all of them, and find out what would the sun look like IF there was more carbon in the core. The laws of physics told us, over and over and over again, that a carbon-core star would not explain the Sun's structure. Nor would axions. Nor would magnetic fields. Nor would a remeasurement of the proton radius. Nor would a reevaluation of the laws of plasma opacity. And so on.
You know what came out of those tests, Michael? Alternative-solar-fusion hypotheses never agreed with the data in all detail. The-normal-sun-plus-neutrino-oscillations hypothesis did agree with the data in full detail. You know which model was confirmed when SuperK/SNO/KamLAND/etc. came online? The model that agreed with all of the modern data.
(Where do you, Ratcliffe, and Manuel fit in this process? Nowhere I can see. You're stuck in the sort of free-brainstorming, "huh, I wonder if it works if X" phase and you somehow thought that was enough. I haven't seen any evidence that you've actually turned that brainstorm into a solar model. And a good thing too, because the resulting model does not agree with the data---sorry.)
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Holy cow - more ignorance!
Starting with the minor point - Dungey did not coin the term magnetic reconnection. Parker coined it. Dungey's book was instrumental in making it the standard term used for the phenomena.
The major point is more CRANK IGNORANCE: Dungey never stated that flares and CMEs are caused by electrical discharges. Dungey never connected solar flares with actual electrical discharges.
From Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma.
Dungey's obsolete usage
- Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
13th January 2011 (13 months and counting
) - Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
18th October 2011 (120 days and counting!) - MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
8th November 2011 (99 days and counting)
Almo
Masterblazer
The Membership Agreement does not protect people who are not members of the forum from personal attack. Which is why we're really glad Ms. Palin does not have an account here.
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Complaints
Aside from that, demanding the removal of a post in-thread is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to click on the exclam (!) in the triangle at the lower left corner of the offending post and report it to the moderators with your complaint. They will deal with it appropriately.
The Membership Agreement does not protect people who are not members of the forum from personal attack. Which is why we're really glad Ms. Palin does not have an account here.
Aside from that, demanding the removal of a post in-thread is the wrong thing to do. The right thing to do is to click on the exclam (!) in the triangle at the lower left corner of the offending post and report it to the moderators with your complaint. They will deal with it appropriately.
Almo
Masterblazer
That was interesting. I knew the Solar Neutrino Problem existed, and that they observe neutrios in old mines full of chlorine, but I didn't know about the many hypotheses they tried. Thanks for that.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Incredible....well, incredibly sad.
You whine that a solar model should have a defined composition. I give you that composition based on nuclear chemistry analysis. You call the guy that has devoted a life's work to the idea a crackpot and a fraud and never cite a single legitimate flaw in his work, even though he's published MANY papers on the topic. What's the point of giving you folks what you ask for anyway? You ignored Alfvens' maths. You've handwaved a little at the Mann and Onel paper and pretty much IGNORED the implications of that paper as it relates to the legitimacy of circuit theory as applies to plasmas and solar satellite imagery. The whole denial process is based upon personal attack and outright pathological denial of the evidence presented! Wow. Creationists have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on EU haters.
You whine that a solar model should have a defined composition. I give you that composition based on nuclear chemistry analysis. You call the guy that has devoted a life's work to the idea a crackpot and a fraud and never cite a single legitimate flaw in his work, even though he's published MANY papers on the topic. What's the point of giving you folks what you ask for anyway? You ignored Alfvens' maths. You've handwaved a little at the Mann and Onel paper and pretty much IGNORED the implications of that paper as it relates to the legitimacy of circuit theory as applies to plasmas and solar satellite imagery. The whole denial process is based upon personal attack and outright pathological denial of the evidence presented! Wow. Creationists have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on EU haters.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Speaking of pure unadulterated denial of scientific and historical fact:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html
When are you going to get off that denial-go-round?
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000135.000.html
When are you going to get off that denial-go-round?
Oliver Manuel looked at some meteorites and saw a certain mix of elements. That's science.
He hypothesized that this corresponded to the mix of elements on the Sun. That's hypothesizing.
According to all of the other not-currently-in-dispute laws of pressure, temperature, density, gravity, etc., Manuel's proposed mix of elements would stick together in a very non-Sun-like object, with an extremely non-Sun-like radius and luminosity. That's science that Manuel has avoided doing. That's a test of Manuel's model. He has not performed this test himself, but I have, and his model is wrong.
It's not "hating" to say so. That's what science is supposed to do. It's supposed to sort through the infinite collection of hypotheses, find the one that agrees with the data, and reject the others. Manuel's model got yet another bog-standard rejection, because, just like many others, it doesn't agree with observed reality.
The axion-mediated-cooling and the neutrino-decay and the Saha-equation people took their hypotheses, studied them rigorously and in as much, and learned whether the data contradicted them. Manuel did not, and that's the beginning of the road to ridicule.
He hypothesized that this corresponded to the mix of elements on the Sun. That's hypothesizing.
According to all of the other not-currently-in-dispute laws of pressure, temperature, density, gravity, etc., Manuel's proposed mix of elements would stick together in a very non-Sun-like object, with an extremely non-Sun-like radius and luminosity. That's science that Manuel has avoided doing. That's a test of Manuel's model. He has not performed this test himself, but I have, and his model is wrong.
It's not "hating" to say so. That's what science is supposed to do. It's supposed to sort through the infinite collection of hypotheses, find the one that agrees with the data, and reject the others. Manuel's model got yet another bog-standard rejection, because, just like many others, it doesn't agree with observed reality.
The axion-mediated-cooling and the neutrino-decay and the Saha-equation people took their hypotheses, studied them rigorously and in as much, and learned whether the data contradicted them. Manuel did not, and that's the beginning of the road to ridicule.
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
Speaking of pure unadulterated ignorance of scientific and historical fact:
From Michael Mozina's delusion about electrical discharges in plasma.
Dungey's obsolete usage
- Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different.
13th January 2011 (13 months and counting) - Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
18th October 2011 (120 days and counting!) - MM: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!
8th November 2011 (99 days and counting)
When are you going to learn to read your citations?
and from Dungey's 'electric discharge' = large current density in magnetic reconnection
Originally Posted by D'rok
Originally Posted by Dungey (1953 paper)
A 'discharge' will be a region [of a large mass of ionized gas in a more or less complicated state of motion] in which the electrons are accelerated to high energies by the electric field, so that all the electrons are moving in the same direction with large velocities.
ETA
It would take an idiot not understand that
- Dungey's context is magnetic reconnection as a cause of solar flares.
- 'Electrical discharges' in Dungey's context have nothing to do with actual electrical discharges (which are impossible in plasma).
Last edited:
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2008
- Messages
- 4,852
In the ancient world (perhaps culminating with Aristotle) science was observational in nature and only verbal descriptions were possible. To a limited extent, Archimedes and a few others were precursors of the modern world's physicists with the discovery that the universe behaves wholly mathematically. Galileo, Newton and all subsequent physicists have been able to describe their theories only through mathematics.
Regarding electromagnetic phenomena (the subject of this thread), Maxwell demonstrated this mathematical reality of electromagnetism exquisitely through his famous equations. Consequently, all modern physicists know that here can be no analysis of electromagnetic phenomena without using mathematics. Crackpots and charlatans can only use ordinary language to push their agenda and it has been amply manifested that electric sun and EU cranks do not possess the mathematical skills to understand the false physics they endlessly promulgate.
I believe we can easily *IDENTIFY* those Internet dwellers who advocate *CRACKPOT* physics and *DISMISS* them as frauds and *PRETENDERS* who have a pathological need for attention.
Regarding electromagnetic phenomena (the subject of this thread), Maxwell demonstrated this mathematical reality of electromagnetism exquisitely through his famous equations. Consequently, all modern physicists know that here can be no analysis of electromagnetic phenomena without using mathematics. Crackpots and charlatans can only use ordinary language to push their agenda and it has been amply manifested that electric sun and EU cranks do not possess the mathematical skills to understand the false physics they endlessly promulgate.
I believe we can easily *IDENTIFY* those Internet dwellers who advocate *CRACKPOT* physics and *DISMISS* them as frauds and *PRETENDERS* who have a pathological need for attention.
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
I know you did not intend to come even close to listing the types of alternatives proposed, tested, and found wanting.
However, one of my personal faves is missing: the idea that everything is exactly as the physics of the day pointed to, just that the Sun has these, you know, oscillations, in the fusion rates in its core. Oscillations that last tens/hundreds/thousands/... of years. And that we happen to be 'observing' the Sun's core at a low point in its fusion rate cycle (that's why Davis saw such low numbers of neutrinos), and that these cycles aren't reflected - in any obvious way - in the Sun's (eventual) photospheric emission because {insert clever ideas here}.
Oh, and let's not forget the dozens (or more?) of papers on 'here's why Davis' reported rates are wrong (subtext: his experimental methods are not up to scratch/his analyses ignore huge systematic effects/etc)'.
Now back to your regular, scheduled program ...
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
That's true. That's why I have provided you folks with Alfven's double layer paper, and that paper by Mann and Onel. They mathematically express solar flare events from the circuit/E orientation of plasma physics.
You mean kinda of like you and that magnet cartoon?
More personal attacks from an EU hater. Yawn. EU haters aren't interested in mathematics or physics or they would read and respond to, and *ACKNOWLEDGE* those papers by Lee, by Mann, and by Alfven. They only use mathematics as a PRETENSE FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS. No theory rises and falls on the maths skills of a single individual. Get over it already.
Kinda like you and your NEED to interject PERSONAL ATTACKS into what SHOULD BE an honest scientific conversation? When did you intend to acknowledge the mathematical validity of the circuit/E orientation to plasma physics and spend some time convincing your side of the aisle that yes indeed, ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES can and do occur in solar flares?
Are you personally ever going to respond to and acknowledge those papers by Alfven and by Mann and Onel? Did you find any mathematical flaws in their presentation? Do you have any mathematical or scientific arguments, or are personal attacks all you're good for?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
What an absolutely PATHETIC argument. I've seen hard core denial before, but your denial that electrical discharges occur in plasmas and flares absolutely takes the cake.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
What *IS* the point of trying to have a scientific conversation on this topic on this website anyway? None of the HATERS care one IOTA about mathematics or physics. If they did they would simply accept the validity of Alfven's double layer paper and that paper by Mann and Onel, and embrace the E side of plasma physics. Since HATERS can't do that, they are forced to resort to the only thing they can do, denial and personal attacks. How utterly sad.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Of those seven high energy emission patterns that have been associated with solar flares, all seven are explained *IN THE LAB* with "electrical discharges" through plasma. Only *ONE* of the items on that list has been EMPIRICALLY associated with "magnetic reconnection". No SPECIFIC orientation, E or B is "better than" another in terms of mathematics. Maxwell's equations can be expressed either way.
The EU haters can't even accept basic physics, namely that "discharges happen" in plasma. The rest of the argument therefore goes around and around in circles of pure denial with nothing more than personal attacks against anyone promoting an E orientation to plasma physics. It's just WEIRD behavior that is typically limited to CULTS.
The haters aren't interested in mathematics. They aren't interested in laboratory physics either. They're only interested in ego gratification based on personal attacks. Honestly, creationists have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on EU haters. It's pure denial, denial and more denial.
The EU haters can't even accept basic physics, namely that "discharges happen" in plasma. The rest of the argument therefore goes around and around in circles of pure denial with nothing more than personal attacks against anyone promoting an E orientation to plasma physics. It's just WEIRD behavior that is typically limited to CULTS.
The haters aren't interested in mathematics. They aren't interested in laboratory physics either. They're only interested in ego gratification based on personal attacks. Honestly, creationists have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on EU haters. It's pure denial, denial and more denial.
I wouldn't ask an illiterate Nahuatl speaker whether or to use the Oxford comma or not. I'd ask someone who actually reads and write English and accomplishes things with such writing.
For the same reasons, I wouldn't ask Michael Mozina, who doesn't actually solve plasma equations himself, whether to use the E or the B orientations.
For the same reasons, I wouldn't ask Michael Mozina, who doesn't actually solve plasma equations himself, whether to use the E or the B orientations.
GeeMack
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Messages
- 7,235
Apparently everything available to support an electric Sun conjecture has been provided. It has all been rejected for various reasons, not the least of which being it doesn't even mean what the electric Sun proponents seem to believe it means. Much of it is cherry picked words and phrases with a "discharge" here and an "electrical" there. That and a bunch of looks-like-a-bunny nonsense that nobody seems to be able to assemble into a contiguous whole. It's not even a theory. Barely even a conjecture since the case hasn't been presented in a way that can be understood... scientifically... by real scientists. If there's nothing else, maybe the conversation is over.
Yes, if real scientists simply believed these things with the same faith as the advocates do, simply accept the validity of it without objective quantitative support, this wouldn't be so difficult.
So the failure isn't the fault of the electric Sun proponents? Maybe the mean old critics are to blame for the failure. Persecution, I say! There's surely a conspiracy among the tens of thousands of solar and plasma physicists on Earth to silence the truth.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
There's only one real "reason". The evidence blows away EU hater belief systems, starting with your belief that electrical discharges do not occur in plasmas. The moment a hater embraces the circuit/E orientation to plasma physics, the jig is up. The moment they let got of the hate, the hater party is over, and science prevails over hatred. EU haters can't and won't give up their hatred for EU oriented ideas, just as creationists cannot and will not give up their hatred for evolutionary theory. The moment that hatred is gone, all that remains is science that blows that hatred away.
Last edited:
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Even if it's all true, so what? No theory rises or falls on the math skills of a single individual. Did you find any flaw in Alfven's double layer paper? Did you find any flaws in the paper by Mann and Onel?
I guess the EU hater mentality is based upon the false belief that if they bash individuals, the actual math that crushes their beliefs doesn't really exist.
I said, I'm not following the corona-physics part of the thread.
Mann and Onel? It's a short, unremarkable paper (cited once, by another Mann and Onel paper) and it shows what electrons do in the presence of a Sun-like magnetic field with a small (few kV) electric field. It claims that this electric field arises from thermodynamics. I have no problem with any of that, and it doesn't sound the slightest bit like it supports your assertions.
- Status