Electric universe theories here.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Dancing David said:
Now how are you going to do that.

Well, I would personally work backwards and use the lensing data and such to tell me how much mass is there, and I'd work backwards *WITHOUT* metaphysical gap filler.

the mass of visible objects is easy to estimate,

It's evidently not nearly as easy to estimate as you believe. You have no idea if you can easily measure the mass of the object unless you *assume* it's mostly made of hydrogen and helium. If you remove that premise, all bets are off. If it was "easy" you wouldn't need gap filler. Evidently it's harder than you think.

as is the mass of the interstellar medium.

Again, this too is much more complicated than first realized.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25444

Ooops, they grossly underestimated that one too.

So how do you think they should estimate the mass of galaxies? What method changes do you propose?

I kind of like the lensing technique personally, but I do not assume as you do that every bit of "unidentified mass" must necessarily be in the form of non baryonic "dark matter".

So, as i asked you before.

How do you explain the actual roatation curves of galaxies and the star clusters that orbit them?

I personally think it's due to a combination of factors including the fact you continue to grossly underestimate the mass of stars, grossly underestimate the amount of interstellar dust and grossly underestimate the influences of intergalactic and interstellar current flows. I have no faith that any of it resides in any non baryonic forms of "dark matter".

There are not enough MACHOs by current observations. So how do you explain the acceleration of the objects beyond that predicted from the visible material?

I don't believe that you correctly estimated the objects and medium that you already observe.

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Well, I would personally work backwards and use the lensing data and such to tell me how much mass is there, and I'd work backwards *WITHOUT* metaphysical gap filler.

For the benefit of any lurkers here (everyone here knows that MM will ignore this):
That is exactly what astronomers did.

They used the lensing data to see how much mass in a galaxy or galactic cluster would cause the lensing. There was no "metaphysical gap filler" assumed here. The astronomers were looking for any mass at all since that is what gravitational lensing detects.
They then tallied up the visible (in all wavelengths) mass.
Any difference must be due to mass that is not visible to us.
They called this difference "dark matter".

(the rotation curves of galaxies and the motions of galaxies in galactic clusters also show that there is too little visible matter to account for their dynamics)

Note that astronomers can go a step further - they can actually map the density of matter in a cluster (see this post) and see that most of the mass is not in the galaxies but distributed spherically throughout the cluster.

The next step was to investigate the nature of this dark matter - was it massive compact halo objects (MACHOs), weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) or something more exotic?

If there were MACHOs then they would cause micro-lensing that we could detect. Searches for this micro-lensing have detected enough micro-lensing to account for ~1% of the mass needed. The consensus is that MACHOs form little or no part of dark matter.

The evidence that dark matter is WIMPs came with the two observations of colliding galactic clusters - the Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222.

The collisions caused the gas in the clusters (comprising most of the cluster mass) to collide and heat up, thus emitting X-rays and becoming easily detectable. This electromagnetic interaction slows the gas and separates it from the stars in the cluster. The stars in the clusters are relatively unaffected by the collisions.
If the putative dark matter was normal (baryonic) matter and was influenced by electromagnetic interactions then it would follow the hot gas.

Astronomers measured a separation between the dark matter and the cluster gas. Thus dark matter is not baryonic matter. It is not influenced by electromagnetic forces but is influenced by gravity (and maybe the weak force).

Most cosmologists agree that dark matter is cold dark matter, i.e. unknown non-baryonic particles traveling at non-relativistic velocities.

DeiRenDopa · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

DeiRenDopa said:

"Rigid" huh?

Dare I ask how you define "rigid"?

Click to expand...

I define it in the conventional sense. That feature I circled in the Doppler image is "rigid" in terms of it's lifetime, whereas the photosphere is clearly not rigid and the wave passes through the photosphere. That wave in the photosphere leaves the rigid features under the wave undisturbed. Why is that feature "rigid"?

[...]

(bold added)

'Rigid', as in it possesses 'rigidity', or to give it the conventional term 'stiffness'.

Now I think that Wikipedia has the definition of stiffness right:

The stiffness, k, of a body is a measure of the resistance offered by an elastic body to deformation (bending, stretching or compression).

k=\frac {P} {\delta}

where

P is a steady force applied on the body
δ is the displacement produced by the force (for instance, the deflection of a beam, or the change in length of a stretched spring)

In the International System of Units, stiffness is typically measured in newtons per metre.

So what is the stiffness of the relevant part of the Sun, MM?

I mean, in your so-called theory (or in Birkeland's or Alfvén's or Bruce's or ...), what do you *PREDICT* the stiffness to be?

And what is the estimated stiffness, as derived from "Kosovichev's Doppler image", of the layer at 0.995R?

And in which Birkeland document does he *PREDICT* a layer just under the photosphere with that stiffness (precise citation please; this is the second time I'm asking)?

Oh, and what is the pressure acting on that part of the Sun, MM?

DeiRenDopa · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[second image omitted]

Cool!

What is the scale of the image MM?

What is the intensity scale?

So the scene seems to be illumated from the right (shadows are being cast to the left) ... what is the source of illumination MM?

Dancing David · Jun 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
Easy. You're figuring the mass of galaxies using how gravity bends light, and you come up with all that apparent extra mass you can't explain. So you name the magic surplus "dark matter". And that's where you're as wrong as wrong can be. Instead of inventing "dark matter" fairies as an excuse for the extra mass, divide it up into the necessary amount of iron and nickel to make the surfaces of all those stars solid like a bunch of giant meteors. No need for "dark matter" pixies. Plus there's the proof for the solid surface of the Sun theory. Send a few bazillion volts of electricity careening throughout the universe, zap the stars, they burn like the flash of an arc welder, and, well, let there be light! Everyone in the astrophysics industry actually already knows this, but they're too afraid to admit it for fear of losing their funding. Next question?

Poe's law!

Dancing David · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Well, I would personally work backwards and use the lensing data and such to tell me how much mass is there, and I'd work backwards *WITHOUT* metaphysical gap filler.

It's evidently not nearly as easy to estimate as you believe. You have no idea if you can easily measure the mass of the object unless you *assume* it's mostly made of hydrogen and helium. If you remove that premise, all bets are off. If it was "easy" you wouldn't need gap filler. Evidently it's harder than you think.

Again, this too is much more complicated than first realized.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25444

Ooops, they grossly underestimated that one too.

I kind of like the lensing technique personally, but I do not assume as you do that every bit of "unidentified mass" must necessarily be in the form of non baryonic "dark matter".

I personally think it's due to a combination of factors including the fact you continue to grossly underestimate the mass of stars, grossly underestimate the amount of interstellar dust and grossly underestimate the influences of intergalactic and interstellar current flows. I have no faith that any of it resides in any non baryonic forms of "dark matter".

I don't believe that you correctly estimated the objects and medium that you already observe.

Fair enough. Thanks for the answer MM, so is the estimate of the mass of the sun incorrect?

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Cool!

What is the scale of the image MM?

What is the intensity scale?

So the scene seems to be illumated from the right (shadows are being cast to the left) ... what is the source of illumination MM?

It is a still shot from an AVI at the the Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE) web site's archive of images. The caption is:

Coronal mass ejection
This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB AVI movie (Cinepak compressed) shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.

MM's caption for the image is:

This is an example of a "running difference" image of the sun's surface revealed by the TRACE satellite using its 171 angstrom filter. This filter is specifically sensitive to iron ion (FE IX/X) emissions and records a C3.3 flare and mass ejection in AR 9143 in 171Å on 28 Aug. 2000. The flare activity is caused by increased electrical activity as fast moving plasma sweeps over surface ridges, resulting in increased electrical activity on the windward side of the mountain ranges.

MM's delusions seem to include that the corona is the surface of the Sun (thus "mountain ranges"). The visible surface of the Sun is the photosphere so MM is only out by 3000 kilometres or so!

And the woo gets better (or worse?) :jaw-dropp

!
MM's description of running difference images:

When it comes to compelling evidence of a solid surface on the sun, seeing is believing. The TRACE and SOHO programs use very sophisticated software to create what are called "running difference" images like the top image from TRACE and the chronologically ordered examples from SOHO shown on the right. These images were created by NASA at the frequency of various iron ions, using software that essentially compares sequential snapshots, subtracting one set of images from the other, and thereby isolating only the more consistent and "stronger" features from each image. This image processing technique creates a very detailed "snapshot" of the stronger, more obvious features of the iron calcium ferrite surface of the sun that lies below the photosphere.

(emphasis added)

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

Does Michael Mozina know how invalid Peratt's model is?

Michael Mozina,
Yet more questions that you are ignoring so lets add a time stamp and ask again:
First asked on 23 June 2009.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
...snip...
You've probably never bothered to read Peratt's experiments nor begin to comprehend how they might apply.
...snip...

I know a lot more about "Peratt's experiments" than you seem to be since I have read as many of his papers as I have been able to access. I happen to know the prime reason that his model is fatally flawed (something that any one with a basic knowledge of astronomy can see).

Have you actually "bothered to read Peratt's experiments nor begin to comprehend how they might apply"?
A small test for you, Michael Mozina:

What were the names of the software that Anthony Perrat used in his simulation?
How many particles were simulated?
What was the distribution of particles in the various simulations?

Try answering those questions before looking at: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation and see the simple reason that his model is invalid (and a few more thrown in for fun).
Hint: It is something to do with his computer simulation producing results that do not match reality.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Dancing David said:
Fair enough. Thanks for the answer MM, so is the estimate of the mass of the sun incorrect?

I have no evidence that the estimate of mass of our own sun is incorrect, but our sun is a relatively small sun in comparison to most stars.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
MM's delusions seem to include that the corona is the surface of the Sun (thus "mountain ranges"). The visible surface of the Sun is the photosphere so MM is only out by 3000 kilometres or so!

So if I can demonstrate that these 171A emissions begin *UNDER* the photosphere, that would demonstrate that LMSAL's explanation of this images is false?

http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm

Why is it that Yohkoh only sees the tops of these loops (yellow) and it cannot see the footprints that are visible in the 171A image (blue)?

You also seem to be ignoring Kosovichev's Doppler image entirely and it too contains rigid features which are obviously located *UNDER* the photosphere.

Tim Thompson · Jun 23, 2009

Inflation cosmology & Falsifiability

Michael Mozina said:
What can we actually "test" about mainstream theory?

Tim Thompson said:
We have been over this ground before. Of course mainstream theories are very testable, as I have explained before ...

Tim Thompson said:

Inflation is a testable hypothesis. Your assertion to the contrary, as an excuse for declaring it unscientific is a factually false statement. See, i.e., Mikheeva, 20008; Lesgourgues & Valkenburg, 2007; Alabidi & Lyth, 2006; Lidsey & Seery, 2006 ... Liddle, 1999.

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
Ok Tim, I'll pilfer your mathematical constructs related to inflation, dark energy and dark matter and call them "divine breath", "magic energy" and "magic matter". How will you falsify the existence of any of these things?

The reason I provide links to papers which demonstrate the tests you say cannot be done is a forlorn hope that you might actually look at them. Those papers, citations thereto & references therein, carry the answer to your question in detail.

In general, you do it through astronomical observations. It's really fairly simple. Theory says "universe looks like this" but observation says "universe looks like that" is bad news for theory. Theory says "universe looks like this" and observation says "universe looks like this" is good news for theory. You falsify all of these cosmological ideas (inflation, dark matter, dark energy & etc.) by using the scientific method and comparing the predicted behavior of the universe with the observed behavior of the universe. I already know that you do not accept this as scientific but in that you are both alone & wrong and that is the root of the criticism that you invent your own personal definition of "science".

Tim Thompson · Jun 23, 2009

On the matter of Birkeland

Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland was an "intellectually honest" scientist Tim. ...

It's not about Birkeland or anything he said or did. It's about your own personal reinterpretation of Birkeland's work in a vain attempt to usurp Birkeland's reputation to shore up your own failed efforts. It does not work. Nobody is falling for it.

Birkeland's work is 100 years old. Some of it has stood the test of time. Some of his conclusions were on the mark and have been incorporated in the body of astrophysics and space physics for the better part of that century. But it is no surprise, and no mark against Birkeland, that many of his conclusion have not stood up over 100 years. After all, we know a great deal more about plasma physics, for instance (a discipline that did not even exist in Birkeland's day) than he did.

Your reinterpretation of Birkeland's work stands falsified by observation and by standard physics.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Cool!

What is the scale of the image MM?

What is the intensity scale?

So the scene seems to be illumated from the right (shadows are being cast to the left) ... what is the source of illumination MM?

It's your turn. You tell me DRD. What is the original light source of these images, and why do we observe "shadows" to the left as you describe them? Come on. If you actually have a "better" scientific explanation of this image, please enlighten me.

Tim Thompson · Jun 23, 2009

Electric Currents in Space

Michael Mozina said:
You're going to go down in history as one of the last "flat Earthers" at the rate you're going. Evidently you had a run in with Dr. Scott somwhere back in time and somehow you've managed to convince yourself that electricity does not play a vital role in events in space.

Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest. They are incorporated into standard physical models of the solar system and cosmology. There are whole books and reams of papers on the topic. Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question.

However, you and the EU folks make the wrong assumption that electric currents always dominate in all cases and all spatial scales, over every other force, always. You fail to realize the interplay between force in physics. Sometimes plasma & electric currents dominate, sometimes not. Sometimes it's not easy to tell which dominates.

That's the difference. The EU is a failure because it overemphasizes the role of electric currents in events in space. The practitioners of EU fail because they allow personal prejudice to dominate over scientific reasoning.

DeiRenDopa · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

You also seem to be ignoring Kosovichev's Doppler image entirely and it too contains rigid features which are obviously located *UNDER* the photosphere.

(bold added)

There's that word again ... but AFAIK it does NOT appear in any Kosovichev paper.

It's entirely MM's *interpretation* that whatever features he sees are "rigid".

So, MM, how's about you tell us all what the stiffness of these features is?

And then show - quantitatively - that estimates of the stiffness of these features (derived from quantitative analysis of "Kosovichev's Doppler image", using an approach that is independently verifiable) is consistent with the stiffness of the features you see in the other images (derived from quantitative analysis of those other images, using an approach that is independently verifiable).

After all, without these two sets of estimates - backed by the two sets of analyses - the core content of your so-called theory amounts to exactly this:

"I, MM, say there's a rigid structure under the Sun's photosphere, and if you don't like what I tell you, then you can all go {insert appropriate word, or phrase, here}, 'cause I'm not going to tell you again!"

And whatever that content is, it most certainly fails the MM test for being science.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
It's not about Birkeland or anything he said or did. It's about your own personal reinterpretation of Birkeland's work in a vain attempt to usurp Birkeland's reputation to shore up your own failed efforts. It does not work. Nobody is falling for it.

You have that backwards Tim. I put up my website *before* I knew about Birkeland's work based entirely on solar satellite imagery. I was simply stunned when I read Birkeland's work for the first time. It certainly took the wind out of my sails about the notion that *I* had actually "discovered' anything new, or that I had invented this solar model. He and his friends beat me to that realization by over 100 years.

Tim, I know somewhere in there is a rational individual. Birkeland physically and emprically (not some math formula alone) demonstrated that electrical currents flow from the sun toward the heliosphere, they accelerate charged particles as they leave the surface, they generate aurora around planets as they discharge toward the heliosphere, and they generate coronal loops and jets in the solar atmosphere. Birkeland and his team physically created all these same processes and observations in a lab Tim. Come on. I know somewhere inside you that you are capable of laying down your EU prejudices long enough to consider the implications of that work.

Birkeland's work is 100 years old.

So what? He's still 100 years ahead of where you and the mainstream are today Tim. He was still *way* ahead of where I am today. The age of his work is irrelevant. He was still correct about aurora being powered by electrical currents, even 100 years later, no?

Some of it has stood the test of time. Some of his conclusions were on the mark and have been incorporated in the body of astrophysics and space physics for the better part of that century. But it is no surprise, and no mark against Birkeland, that many of his conclusion have not stood up over 100 years.

Tim, you and the mainstream *still* cannot explain something as simple as whole sphere acceleration of charged particles from the sun. Birkeland *predicted* that behavior from his work and physically recreated this process in his experiments. You and other EU critics have *NEVER* studied his work from a place of "willingness to learn". You have never recreated the aurora around spheres in a vacuum using a standard solar model. You've never demonstrated whole sphere acceleration of charged particles in a lab without electrical discharges. There is not even a logical way to explain this whole sphere emission process without using his approach.

You're also *IGNORING* the fact that all of these experiments demonstrated that the solar system and all of space is filled with plasma. At the time he "predicted" this, he too was considered a "crank" by the mainstream. The mainstream clung to Chapman's elegant but incorrect math formulas for 50 more years before acknowledging they were inferior to Birkeland's explanation of the flow of energy to Earth. The mainstream may take *another 50 years* to acknowledge he was correct about a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere.

After all, we know a great deal more about plasma physics, for instance (a discipline that did not even exist in Birkeland's day) than he did.

Birkeland and his team were one of the first scientists to actually experiment with "plasma physics" in a real lab Tim. Sure, we've learned some things since then, like we *NEED* to understand plasma physics in order to understand space. The mainstream laughed at him for even suggesting such a crackpot idea.

Your reinterpretation of Birkeland's work stands falsified by observation and by standard physics.

BS. His work stands the test of time because he physically recreated all of these same core processes in a lab. He created high speed solar with, and flying electrons and flying ions in the lab. He didn't do the couch potato brand of science that is *still* practiced by the mainstream today. Chapman's math was elegant, but it was incorrect. Math is not knowledge. Physics is knowledge. Understanding the physical process we are observing is knowledge. The mainstream has no actual "knowledge" of these things because it refuses to learn from anyone. They gave Alfven the Nobel prize and most of them never even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" or apply any of his MHD theories to space in the way that Alfven himself applied them.

Tim Thompson · Jun 23, 2009

gamma rays

Michael Mozina said:
You point Rhessi at Earth and see gamma rays from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. You point the same satellite at the solar atmosphere, observe gamma rays there too, and claim "magnetic reconnection faeries did it". Let's be intellectually honest here Tim. What *physically demonstrated force of nature" releases gamma rays in the atmospheres of bodies in space?

You see gamma rays from Earth's atmosphere, and indeed some of them are generated by electrical discharges associated with lightning and thunderstorm activity, most likely rapidly decelerating electrons (i.e, Smith, 2009) or inelastic neutron scattering (i.e., Paiva, 2009). But there are always mysteries, and the brightest terrestrial gamma ray flahs yet observed was not associated with a thunderstorm and remains unexplained (Smith, et al., 2006).

Nobody is arguing that electric currents cannot generate gamma rays. Nobody is arguing that electric currents are not responsible for some of the observed gamma rays. But we have been all over this ground as well in previous conversations, and so you must have known in advance how I would answer, since you have asked the very same question before. So I refer you & the curious reader to previous posts with detailed answers about where gamma rays come from: No RHESSI Fusion & CNO Redux.

You seem to make the rather simplistic & unrealistic assumption that the mere presence of gamma rays is by itself a direct indicator of electric currents. But we have already discussed narrow line emission, for instance, which cannot be generated by electric currents. You need to stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

DeiRenDopa · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's your turn. You tell me DRD. What is the original light source of these images, and why do we observe "shadows" to the left as you describe them? Come on. If you actually have a "better" scientific explanation of this image, please enlighten me.

Let me see now ... the title of this thread is what?

Ah yes, "Electric universe theories here".

And is MM's so-called theory, as presented in this thread and on the webpage which in several posts there are links to, an "electric universe theory"?

Why yes it is, even by his own words.

Does this make this post, by MM, that I am quoting, a none-too-subtle example of the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy"?

Indeed it does.

And what does this tell you, dear reader, about the confidence that MM has in his own intellectual creation?

I leave the answer up to you, dear reader; I only note that, in my experience, scientists in general and astronomers in particular are only too pleased to have an opportunity to explain and defend their theories (certainly Birkeland was, and Alfvén too) ...

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
Wrong. I believe no such thing and neither does anyone else I know. Electric currents certainly do play a vital role in events in space, on every spatial scale from the smallest to the largest. They are incorporated into standard physical models of the solar system and cosmology. There are whole books and reams of papers on the topic. Electric currents do play a vital role in events in space without question.

However, you and the EU folks make the wrong assumption that electric currents always dominate in all cases and all spatial scales, over every other force, always.

We both seem to be guilty of *assuming* things about the other's beliefs. I certainly don't personally believe that electrical currents must *always* dominate every process.

You fail to realize the interplay between force in physics.

Again, this is not true. I recognize that gravity plays a vital role as well as electricity. I simply see them as both being required in order to fully appreciate things like "coronal loops", and why they emit gamma rays, or "jets" and why they fly off the sun and defy gravity. There is room for electricity in mainstream thinking, but you seem to be ignoring that there are charged particles flying past us at a million miles an hour. That is also known as "current flow" Tim. There is a discharge process that is responsible for solar wind. Birkeland demonstrated this in a lab. The whole solar system experiences electrical currents because we live inside an electrical current. There is a constant discharge between the surface of the sun and the heliosphere, just as Birkeland "predicted' and "recreated in the lab".

Sometimes plasma & electric currents dominate, sometimes not. Sometimes it's not easy to tell which dominates.

Well, it's easy to tell that something besides gravity is making the solar wind fly by us at over a million miles an hour, and sometimes at a significant portion of the speed of light. Gravity can't explain such behaviors, but electricity can explain these behaviors as Birkeland and his team demonstrated empirically in a real experiment here on Earth, complete with "control mechanisms".

That's the difference. The EU is a failure because it overemphasizes the role of electric currents in events in space. The practitioners of EU fail because they allow personal prejudice to dominate over scientific reasoning.

You know Tim, it occurs to me that you and I need to look for a middle ground here. I'm not suggesting that electrical currents necessarily dominate over every process, and you are not suggesting electricity does not flow in space. Maybe we should be looking for middle ground instead of finding points of contention?

Can we at least agree that the million mile per hour solar wind that blows by the Earth and every planet in the solar system *is* a form of "current flow"?

DeiRenDopa · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
[...]

They gave Alfven the Nobel prize and most of them never even bothered to read "Cosmic Plasma" or apply any of his MHD theories to space in the way that Alfven himself applied them.

I was wondering when you'd get around to introducing Alfvén MM ...

As with Bruce, I was unable to find any posts, by you, in which you "presented" Alfvén's "electric universe theories" in this forum (other than indirectly, by citing your own website, directly or indirectly)*.

Now it turns out that you have had extensive exchanges with a DrRocket, over on the discussion forum attached to space dot com. And reading that material is most educational ... but not in the sense of leaving one with the feeling that you know what you're talking about MM (for other readers: DrRocket shows, in devastating post after devastating post, that MM not only has not understood the very book he is so apparently in love with, but that he hasn't even read much of it! Oh, and there are lots of bits where Alfvén's work aligns with textbook astrophysics, and some bits where it has failed the standard scientific tests (it is inconsistent with relevant observations and experiments); there are also lots of bits that are inconsistent with MM's own version of EU theory, and certainly with other versions of EU theory presented here).

BTW, did you bother to read the material I provided a link to earlier MM? The stuff that knocks Bruce's ideas for six? If you had, you'd have noticed that that work is a direct result of Alfvén's own work on MHD ... but, of course, you have to be able to follow the relevant physics and math to see this, and we have an abundance of objective evidence that such a basic task is beyond you, so I expect that you didn't even try to read the papers ...

* as usual, I could have missed something, so if any reader knows of posts by MM where he did this, I'd appreciate you pointing them out

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
Let me see now ... the title of this thread is what?

You know DRD, I was naive when I began these conversations 4 years ago. I thought for awhile that some real "scientist' might come along and say something to the effect of: "You know Mr. Mozina, I realize that you believe for the time being that you're observing a surface in these images, but let me explain all the details of these images from the perspective of the standard solar model and I think you'll see why you're wrong about that". I then figured someone might actually "explain" these images in a professional way that left no doubt that I was simply wrong. Nobody ever did that, or even *tried* to do that with any sort of professionalism or attention to detail. Instead you crucified me, attacked me as an individual and acted like just a religious cult, witch hunts and everything.

I realize now that everything that you believe in is false. Your solar theories (mine too 5 years ago) are false. Your faith in "dark" stuff is also false. Your belief that only math constitutes "knowledge' is false. Your concepts are false from beginning to end and based upon faith, not upon physics. You shouldn't feel too bad actually because the same was true for me as well a few years ago. I however could simply open my eyes, lay down my ego, and look at the universe with fresh eyes. You can't. Your ego and professional livelihood is so heavily invested in being right, you simply can't look reality in the face.

Ah yes, "Electric universe theories here".

Birkeland was more or less the first electric universe proponent, or at least the first one to *demonstrate* it has merit in real laboratory settings and real "experiments" with real "control mechanisms" where cause and effect can be firmly established.

Are you ever going to demonstrate your alleged scientific superiority by 'explaining' the details of these images, yes or no? An "intellectually honest" individual would focus on the *IMAGES IN QUESTION AND THE SCIENCE*, not the individual. You are not focused on the science, but rather on me. That is scientifically unethical. Do you have a "better" explanation for these images, including the rigid features which remain visible in these images over a long lifetime? Yes or no?

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
You see gamma rays from Earth's atmosphere, and indeed some of them are generated by electrical discharges associated with lightning and thunderstorm activity, most likely rapidly decelerating electrons (i.e, Smith, 2009) or inelastic neutron scattering (i.e., Paiva, 2009). But there are always mysteries, and the brightest terrestrial gamma ray flahs yet observed was not associated with a thunderstorm and remains unexplained (Smith, et al., 2006).

Nobody is arguing that electric currents cannot generate gamma rays.

Why aren't you acknowledging that it is one known and verified way to generate gamma rays around bodies in space, and therefore the most likely way the sun generates them in it's atmosphere as well? If Rhessi observe them from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere, isn't it also likely that the gamma rays seen in the solar atmosphere could also be discharge related?

Nobody is arguing that electric currents are not responsible for some of the observed gamma rays.

As far as I can tell discharges are responsible for *most* (probably not all) gamma rays from the atmosphere. They almost always seem to be associated with events at the base of coronal loops.

But we have been all over this ground as well in previous conversations, and so you must have known in advance how I would answer, since you have asked the very same question before. So I refer you & the curious reader to previous posts with detailed answers about where gamma rays come from: No RHESSI Fusion & CNO Redux.

Regardless of whether or not CNO fusion is involved, the gamma rays are in fact associated with events at the base of coronal loops were "solar moss" forms. The neutron capture signatures on the other hand tend to congregate higher in the solar atmosphere near the middle of coronal loops rather than the base. Both emissions are related to, and emitted by coronal loop activity.

You seem to make the rather simplistic & unrealistic assumption that the mere presence of gamma rays is by itself a direct indicator of electric currents.

Gamma rays in a low temp atmosphere have been show to be associated with gamma rays. Why wouldn't you consider this option *first*? What other naturally occurring events might do that?

But we have already discussed narrow line emission, for instance, which cannot be generated by electric currents. You need to stop jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

You'll have to elaborate on this argument some because I don't see how you eliminated z-pinch process from consideration, especially since electrical currents have been known to generate z-pinch processes.

There is an established and totally natural "cause and effect" relationship established between "atmospheric discharges" and gamma ray emissions. Why would you eliminate that from consideration particularly consider all of Bruce's work on electrical discharge theory?

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

Let's you and I skip the surface argument (I'll do that one with DRD et all). How about you and I focus specifically and only on those multimillion degree coronal loops? How do you know Bruce was wrong about his theories about these high energy events?

GeeMack · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
It's your turn. You tell me DRD. What is the original light source of these images, and why do we observe "shadows" to the left as you describe them? Come on. If you actually have a "better" scientific explanation of this image, please enlighten me.

It's been done to death, Michael. You've been smacked around like a cat toy on this issue on a few other forums. You've lost this argument, miserably, several times. You don't have the slightest idea what a running difference image is. You're flat out wrong in your interpretation of it. So wrong, in fact, that not a single professional in the field of physics, astrophysics, or solar sciences even remotely agrees with you. Not one.

In all the years you've had to make your case, why do you think it is that you haven't been able to sway even a single person, Michael? You're wrong? You're unable to communicate effectively? Or everyone on Earth who is highly educated enough on this subject to actually be employed in the field is stupider than you?

But oh well, if you insist on getting your butt kicked again, why don't you open another thread about the solid surface of the Sun. Then you can properly demonstrate once again that you're delusional. (... as if there's any doubt in anyone's mind on that point.)

GeeMack · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You know DRD, I was naive when I began these conversations 4 years ago. I thought for awhile that some real "scientist' might come along and say something to the effect of: "You know Mr. Mozina, I realize that you believe for the time being that you're observing a surface in these images, but let me explain all the details of these images from the perspective of the standard solar model and I think you'll see why you're wrong about that". I then figured someone might actually "explain" these images in a professional way that left no doubt that I was simply wrong. Nobody ever did that, or even *tried* to do that with any sort of professionalism or attention to detail. Instead you crucified me, attacked me as an individual and acted like just a religious cult, witch hunts and everything.

And as to that comment, you are a flat out liar.

GeeMack · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Do you have a "better" explanation for these images, including the rigid features which remain visible in these images over a long lifetime? Yes or no?

Better explanation: They're not rigid. Anyone besides Michael disagree? Didn't think so.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
It's been done to death, Michael. You've been smacked around like a cat toy on this issue on a few other forums. You've lost this argument, miserably, several times.

Boloneyl. You've only embarrassed yourself on other forums.

You don't have the slightest idea what a running difference image is. You're flat out wrong in your interpretation of it.

So enlighten us, here and now. Explain *all the details* we can observe in that first RD image for us. Why are we observing fixed patters during a CME event? What's that "dust in the wind" for lack of a better term? Where did it come from? Where did it go? What's the pealing effect we observe along the right during the CME event? What is the light source of the original images and how does that knowledge help us to explain some of the details of these images?

In all the years you've had to make your case, why do you think it is that you haven't been able to sway even a single person, Michael?

Er, why do you have a need to exaggerate and berate? I know of several folks that do agree with me. An actual "scientist" would explain all the details of these two images. A sleaze artist fixates on individuals and ignores the images. Which are you? If you think you can "kick my butt", please do so "scientifically" explain some of those details and why those features remain "persistent" throughout the CME event. What's that persistent feature under the photosphere in Kosovichev's video?

There are just two of MILLIONS of satellite images and movies. Can't you even explain two satellite images?

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
And as to that comment, you are a flat out liar.

False. You personally are like one of the enforcement "thugs" of the cult. DRD tends to play the role of grand inquisitor and/or executioner. I've had my throat slit at two different sites where DRD has moderated. Once she slit my throat and never bothered to even notify anyone they did it. Even religious oriented message boards are more tolerant of dissent than your inbred little cult. Fortunately you don't own the whole internet, there are websites in cyberspace with integrity, and time and technology are on my side.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
Better explanation: They're not rigid. Anyone besides Michael disagree? Didn't think so.

That's your best effort eh? That tells me a lot.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

DeiRenDopa said:
I was wondering when you'd get around to introducing Alfvén MM ...

As with Bruce, I was unable to find any posts, by you, in which you "presented" Alfvén's "electric universe theories" in this forum (other than indirectly, by citing your own website, directly or indirectly)*.

How many forums have we butted heads on now? 3? 4? More? I tend to use the same handle whereas that isn't true of everyone in cyberspace so I can't be certain, but I'm sure it's at least three forums now. I've certainly mentioned Bruce's work to you, and there's a nice link to his work on the first page of my website. Have you read my website?

Now it turns out that you have had extensive exchanges with a DrRocket, over on the discussion forum attached to space dot com.

You'll note that space.com is a reputable website and they don't conduct witch hunts like your little cult boards. Dr. Rocket was perhaps the only real vocal critic of my beliefs at that forum but we seem to have learned to live and let live.

And reading that material is most educational ... but not in the sense of leaving one with the feeling that you know what you're talking about MM (for other readers: DrRocket shows, in devastating post after devastating post, that MM not only has not understood the very book he is so apparently in love with, but that he hasn't even read much of it!

This is all ridiculously false. He didn't even bother to read Cosmic Plasma for the first 6-8 months of our conversation. How the hell could he understand any of Alfven's cosmology theories without ever reading his book on that subject or his papers? To his credit however, it turns out that DrRocket is *infinitely* more intellectually honest than you are. At least he broke down and eventually bought the book and while he may have wanted me virtually executed, he hasn't been on my case in months and he's learned to "deal with dissent". You however are still taking on the role of the grand inquisitor.

Oh, and there are lots of bits where Alfvén's work aligns with textbook astrophysics, and some bits where it has failed the standard scientific tests (it is inconsistent with relevant observations and experiments); there are also lots of bits that are inconsistent with MM's own version of EU theory, and certainly with other versions of EU theory presented here).

I personally tend to think of myself as more of a "Birkeland purist", since I use his solar model whereas Alfven and Bruce used a standard solar model. Not all EU proponents would agree with my choice of Birkeland's solar model.

BTW, did you bother to read the material I provided a link to earlier MM? The stuff that knocks Bruce's ideas for six?

Where did they mention Bruce by name in those links? How did they "knock" his ideas exactly in your opinion?

If you had, you'd have noticed that that work is a direct result of Alfvén's own work on MHD ... but, of course, you have to be able to follow the relevant physics and math to see this, and we have an abundance of objective evidence that such a basic task is beyond you, so I expect that you didn't even try to read the papers ...

Even in Alfven's time people abused and misused his MHD theories. Alfven for instanced called your beloved "magnetic reconnection" theory "pseudoscience" and he described CME's as explosive, electrically active double layers. You folks have *NEVER* applied his work properly, at least not in his opinion.

* as usual, I could have missed something, so if any reader knows of posts by MM where he did this, I'd appreciate you pointing them out

You posture and include more disclaimers than anyone I've ever met.

GeeMack · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Boloneyl. You've only embarrassed yourself on other forums.

Embarrassed? Not me. Who got banned? Who came back as a sock puppet? Not me.

So enlighten us, here and now. Explain *all the details* we can observe in that first RD image for us. Why are we observing fixed patters during a CME event?

It's your lunatic claim, Michael. Start a thread on the surface of the Sun and you explain them.

What's that "dust in the wind" for lack of a better term?

Well it sure isn't dust. But if you think it is, start a thread on the surface of the Sun and you explain it.

Where did it come from? Where did it go?

It's not dust.

What's the pealing effect we observe along the right during the CME event?

It's not peeling.

What is the light source of the original images and how does that knowledge help us to explain some of the details of these images?

The light source is essentially a florescent lamp behind the LCDs on your monitor if you have a flat screen.

Er, why do you have a need to exaggerate and berate? I know of several folks that do agree with me.

And the entire body of professional astrophysicists on Earth thinks you're wrong.

An actual "scientist" would explain all the details of these two images.

Actual scientists have. That you have been so willfully ignorant as to not realize it isn't anyone's fault but your own.

A sleaze artist fixates on individuals and ignores the images. Which are you? If you think you can "kick my butt", please do so "scientifically" explain some of those details and why those features remain "persistent" throughout the CME event. What's that persistent feature under the photosphere in Kosovichev's video?

There are just two of MILLIONS of satellite images and movies. Can't you even explain two satellite images?

Your willful ignorance notwithstanding, I, and many others, have explained your pretty little pictures at great length. But all you could do was stuff your fingers in your ears and whine like a little girl. Your butt's been duly kicked.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
Embarrassed? Not me.

Then just sit down and explain these image in a "better" scientific manner and be attentive to detail. Otherwise you're just choosing the path of pure sleaze and we have nothing to talk about. You're welcome to wallow in self imposed ignorance for the rest of your life for all I care.

It's your lunatic claim,

I guess since your religious cult can't damn me to hell, you instead settle for a pure smear campaign aimed at the individual. Sleaze, sleaze and more sleaze and not a lick of science from you or any other self professed "expert" on solar images. Your childish behaviors are absolutely pathetic and the fact you refuse to simply focus on the images says volumes.

Your willful ignorance notwithstanding, I, and many others, have explained your pretty little pictures at great length. [/QUOTE]

Never have any of you been even the least bit attentive to any of the details in that image, not a single one of them. No one has ever even tried to explain Kosovichev's images in public. You folks are a legend in your own mind. Never have you once addressed the details of that image personally. Pealing? What pealing? Particles in the atmosphere? What particles in atmosphere? Persistent features in the images? What persistent features in the images? You're pathetic.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

GeeMack said:
It's not dust.

What is it? Where did it come from and where did it go?

It's not peeling.

What is it? Explain the "cause" of that observation for us.

The light source is essentially a florescent lamp behind the LCDs on your monitor if you have a flat screen.

Like this is supposed to demonstrate your scientific superiority? Please!

And the entire body of professional astrophysicists on Earth thinks you're wrong.

It seems to me that you're whole gig is one big appeal to authority fallacy followed by a limitless string of personal insults. Is that all you know how to do?

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
So if I can demonstrate that these 171A emissions begin *UNDER* the photosphere, that would demonstrate that LMSAL's explanation of this images is false?
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg
http://www.solarviews.com/cap/sun/moss8.htm

Why is it that Yohkoh only sees the tops of these loops (yellow) and it cannot see the footprints that are visible in the 171A image (blue)?

You also seem to be ignoring Kosovichev's Doppler image entirely and it too contains rigid features which are obviously located *UNDER* the photosphere.

I have seen and commented on Kosovichev's Doppler "image". It shows what that say it shows - adiabatic stratification,i.e. a change in density of the plasma of the Sun.

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina: Have you read your own web site?
Di you know why the "mountain ranges" in your caption for the TRACE image is completely wrong?
Hint:
And the woo gets better (or worse?) :jaw-dropp

!
MM's description of running difference images:

When it comes to compelling evidence of a solid surface on the sun, seeing is believing. The TRACE and SOHO programs use very sophisticated software to create what are called "running difference" images like the top image from TRACE and the chronologically ordered examples from SOHO shown on the right. These images were created by NASA at the frequency of various iron ions, using software that essentially compares sequential snapshots, subtracting one set of images from the other, and thereby isolating only the more consistent and "stronger" features from each image. This image processing technique creates a very detailed "snapshot" of the stronger, more obvious features of the iron calcium ferrite surface of the sun that lies below the photosphere.

(emphasis added)

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina:
Newtonian dynamics have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
Maxwell's equations have been confirmed in controlled experiments.
General Relativity has been confirmed in controlled experiments.

First asked on 23rd June. 2009. No real response yet (24th June 2009 and counting).

How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

galaxy rotation curves (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
the motion of galxies in galactic clusters (Newtonian dynamics, indirect measurement)
the actual measurement of the mass density of galactic clusters showing that about 2% is in the galaxies and IGM (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, indirect measurement)
the two actual measurements of the separation of dark matter from normal matter:
- NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (Bullet Cluster)
- another observation (MACS J0025.4-1222)
  (Maxwell's equations and General Relativity, direct measurements of the separation of dark and normal matter)
A bit of supporting evidence is that the Millennium Run used the Lambda-CDM model to replicate the large-scale structure of the universe. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

N.B. The above evidence is based on empirical data (as defined in MM's web site, e.g. the solar data and images). But we can expect MM to spew his "empirical measurments of an *CONTROLLED* experiment" non-science yet again. And he has :eye-poppi

!

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
I have seen and commented on Kosovichev's Doppler "image". It shows what that say it shows - adiabatic stratification,i.e. a change in density of the plasma of the Sun.

According to the stratification paper, the region found at .995R makes sound waves travel faster, meaning the density is significantly higher, or it exists at a higher temperature or both. Which of these things are you suggesting is true? Why would that feature I circled show persistence that is far in excess of any other structure we observe in the photosphere? That flowing wave shows us that that the photosphere is "fluid-like" (MHD like) in composition. The "structures" in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals. The "feature/structure" that I circled is unaffected by the wave or be the event that started the wave in the photosphere, suggesting that it must be far more dense than the material of the photosphere. That one feature is but one of several rigid items in that image that show persistence that is far in excess of what we would expect in a plasma that has waves passing through it. Furthermore it also demonstrates that any sort of "more dense/more rigid" plasma is located *UNDER* the photosphere, not 3000KM above the photosphere. That's going to be important when we start comparing this image to the RD images.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
How are these items of evidence for dark matter incorrect?

I went through this at great length with Dancing David. He did seem to comprehend my explanation even if he did not agree with it. Did you miss that discussion? Why do you keep asking me this question?

I personally think you grossly underestimate the mass of stars, the mass of the plasma between star, the influence of current flow between the stars, etc. All these studies demonstrate is that your method for calculating the mass of a galaxy is ridiculously flawed, and woefully underestimates the amount of mass in a galaxy. That is likely due to the fact that you believe that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium IMO.

GeeMack · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Then just sit down and explain these image in a "better" scientific manner and be attentive to detail.

Been there. Done that. You didn't listen then any better than you're listening to sane, intelligent people correct your foolishness now.

I guess since your religious cult can't damn me to hell, you instead settle for a pure smear campaign aimed at the individual. Sleaze, sleaze and more sleaze and not a lick of science from you or any other self professed "expert" on solar images. Your childish behaviors are absolutely pathetic and the fact you refuse to simply focus on the images says volumes.

We don't need a self professed expert. Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong. There likely isn't a higher level expert in solar imagery in the world. Let me repeat: Dr. Neal Hurlburt says you're wrong.

Never have any of you been even the least bit attentive to any of the details in that image, not a single one of them. No one has ever even tried to explain Kosovichev's images in public. You folks are a legend in your own mind. Never have you once addressed the details of that image personally. Pealing? What pealing? Particles in the atmosphere? What particles in atmosphere? Persistent features in the images? What persistent features in the images? You're pathetic.

I've explained the images in detail. Every single pixel. You can't get more detailed than that. Again, your lack of ability to understand that isn't anyone's fault but your own. But for you to say that nobody has explained them, or that I haven't explained them, makes you a liar.

And, one more time for the apparently reading impaired, your harebrained conjecture about the solid surface of the Sun isn't Electric Universe, Michael, and it's damned certain that it isn't a theory, so it really doesn't belong in this thread. If you'd like to discuss that craziness, start a thread on it.

Michael Mozina · Jun 23, 2009

Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina: Have you read your own web site?
Di you know why the "mountain ranges" in your caption for the TRACE image is completely wrong?

Completely wrong according to you or to me? I'm still waiting to see which of you (if anyone here) has the intestinal fortitude to actually sit down and explain these two images professionally and fully, down to the subtle details in each of the images. I'm looking to see you explain the *PROCESS* we observe in these images and the *CAUSES* behind these observations, down to the detailed observations in each image. You're welcome to include math if you like, but I mostly interested in hearing you physically explain these images in terms of cause, effect and specific detailed observation.

It's very clear that LMSAL *ASSUMES* that all the light in these images occur *completely* above the photosphere. How would you verify that *assumption*, and how do you explain the "persistence" and angular patterns (if you don't like rigid) of the features in that image?

Reality Check · Jun 23, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I went through this at great length with Dancing David. He did seem to comprehend my explanation even if he did not agree with it. Did you miss that discussion? Why do you keep asking me this question?

I personally think you grossly underestimate the mass of stars, the mass of the plasma between star, the influence of current flow between the stars, etc. All these studies demonstrate is that your method for calculating the mass of a galaxy is ridiculously flawed, and woefully underestimates the amount of mass in a galaxy. That is likely due to the fact that you believe that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium IMO.

That is your opinion. It is based on what? Your personal dislike of the words "dark" and "matter"?

What is your evidence that astronomers have underestimated the mass of galaxies by a factor of at least 50?

Your ignorance is showing yet again.
Astromoners did not measure the mass of the Sun by assuming that it is "mostly made of hydrogen and helium". They took the mass of the Earth and used orbital mechanics to calaculate the mass needed to keep the Earth in its orbit.
Of course there are other methods, e.g.
Ask an Astronomer: How do you measure the mass of a star?
Astronomers measure the mass of a single star (first since the Sun).

Do you find it strange that astronomers have calculated the mass of the Sun in two different ways (orbital mechanics and using the observed composition of the Sun) and they match?

Electric universe theories here.

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Muse

Muse

Banned

Muse

Master Poster

Banned

Muse

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing