Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Electric universe theories here.

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 1st July 2009, 06:09 AM #441 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by GeeMack Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That is false. He agrees with me that we can see this "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data and in the RD images. As I said, we all (three, not two) agreed upon the term "rigid". We all agree that we can observe a "rigid" surface in those images. So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said. And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site? You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail, yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail? Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done. Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all.
 1st July 2009, 07:52 AM #444 tusenfem Illuminator     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It works *A LOT*. No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge. The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why? That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride. It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments. Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period. Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea, both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this. __________________ Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist
 1st July 2009, 09:55 AM #445 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You're playing "definition games" rather than to deal with the obvious. No. I'm trying to find out what the terms you use mean. Nobody knows, and your previous answer doesn't help. Quote: Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere occur all the time. They are a "natural" event that occurs on other bodies in space too. The only body in space where you seem to reject this process is in the solar atmosphere I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere. Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown. Which happens in insulators under high fields. What happens in conductors if you ramp up the field? You get a continuous increase in current (opposing the buildup of more voltage, BTW). So it's just not possible to get discharge like that in a conductor. And yes, we can observe that on earth. Now, what's different about the solar atmosphere compared to the earth's atmosphere? Why, the solar atmosphere is a plasma! And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors! So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge! Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 1st July 2009, 11:54 AM #447 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Ziggurat I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere. What do you mean by "within", and how can you reject something that has been physically demonstrated to work in a lab? Birkeland's coronal loops occurred *above* a metal sphere, not necessarily inside (within) it. Quote: Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown. You mean atoms turn to plasma and get ionized in the electrical current? Quote: And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors! Ya, but somehow you've convinced yourself they aren't conducting anything. What else could possibly be driving that solar wind process? Quote: So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge! By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already? Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action? What would you call those current carrying threads if not "discharges"? Let me guess, "magnetic lines"? Quote: Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity. Please. Due to a lack of obvious errors on your part thus far, your personal credibility may be a bit higher than say GeeMack who's already stuck his foot down his throat, but until I hear you folks qualitatively explain anything specific about that RD image, I'm not impressed. So far it's been all talk and no action in terms of offering actual detailed explanations of the events in that image. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 1st July 2009 at 11:55 AM.
 1st July 2009, 11:59 AM #448 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by tusenfem Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. Oh baloney. It works in a lab. You guys really need more lab time doing real experiments. Quote: The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea, It's not a "stagnant ion sea", it's a moving flowing environment where protons are not solid or connected to other protons so they too move around and are affected by the flow. Quote: both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this. Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible".
 1st July 2009, 12:15 PM #449 Tim Thompson Muse     Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969 Rigid Plasma? Note emphasis mine: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid. Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can. Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma. Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma"). I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun? __________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
 1st July 2009, 12:34 PM #450 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already? It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor. Quote: Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action? Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas? __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 1st July 2009, 03:51 PM #451 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Ziggurat It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor. But more of it can become ionized in a discharge scenario. Quote: Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas? So what makes you think it's all that different in space? I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted.
 1st July 2009, 04:11 PM #452 Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,001 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's like you all have a mental block Time and time again, you've been proven wrong. Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas. Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use. Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics. You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories. __________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
 2nd July 2009, 01:48 AM #455 tusenfem Illuminator     Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina So what makes you think it's all that different in space? The gas in a "plasma ball" is basically like the Earth's atmosphere, very very small ionization level, and because of the method used, there are lots of discharges like lightning in the Earth's atmosphere. The gas in space is at least 99% ionized if not more. Methinks, thars a difference. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted. Michael, equal amounts of positive and negative charge are whizzing by the Earth at basically equal velocity. Thus this flow does not constitute a current because current is: $ j = n_e * v_e *q_e + \Sigma_i n_i * v_i * q_i$ Moving charges does not equate a net current, this is just basic electrodynamics and Birkeland would have told you so. There is, however, a slight net current flowing, which is created by the heliospheric current sheet in combination with the Parker spiral of the solar wind. This current is necessary to separate the two magnetic hemispheres of the heliosphere (field pointing away from the sun and field pointing towards the sun). Because the current must be perpendicular to the field, this results in a small component of the current in the (anti)solar direction. __________________ Scientific progress goes *BOINK* -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist Last edited by tusenfem; 2nd July 2009 at 01:53 AM.
 2nd July 2009, 11:48 AM #457 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina .So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us. The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image: Originally Posted by GeeMack There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them. Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image. An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer. You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive. Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist. This is very bizarre behaviour. __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 12:03 PM #458 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Note emphasis mine: Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can. Fair enough. I'll define it loosely as a pattern of persistence of structures with "very limited change/time", specifically compared to the plasma structures in the solar atmosphere. Let's start by talking about the "lifespan" of various "structures' in the photosphere. Any K-band image of the photosphere shows us a series of "structures" that are located at the surface of the photosphere. These "structures" have a very limited lifespan of around 10 minutes or so, because the whole surface is convecting heat, much like a boiling liquid. Kosovichev's Doppler images (including some images he has emailed to me personally) show very consistent features *under* the photosphere, like that image on the tsunami page. They typically also show us the waves that pass through the photosphere. In every way the photosphere acts a lot like a liquid as defined in MHD theory. That rigid feature that I circled in Kosovichev's video however is "persistent" and unaffected by the wave in the photosphere in terms of it's overall shape, size, outline and lifespan. Why is that? During the CME event in that RD image we also find "persistent features" that are not consistent with "light plasma" in a "light plasma" atmosphere, but rather these features have a persistence and lifespan that far exceeds anything we find in the photosphere. The chromosphere in Hinode images shows that this part of the atmosphere is even more dynamic than the photosphere, and of course the corona reaches millions of degrees Kelvin and it's also extremely dynamic. How do we get persistence in such a dynamic and changing environment like a CME event in the case of the RD image? How about that angular structure in Kosovichev's Doppler image? Why is that feature persistent throughout the whole movie? Quote: Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma. A dense plasma is one that contains more ions per cubic meter than a light plasma It may also be composed of significantly heavier elements. It could be cooler as well. Quote: Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma"). I do not personally expect plasma to ever become "rigid" which is why I believe we're looking at a solid crust in these images, not simply a more dense layer of plasma. Quote: I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun? Rigid in this case is simply a matter of noticing which structures 'change over time', and which ones do not change as rapidly if at all. Whereas light plasma features in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, these features in the RD and Dopper images have a lifespan that is far in excess of anything related to light plasma in the solar atmosphere. The Doppler image in particular shows key features that can only be located *UNDERNEATH* the photosphere. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd July 2009 at 12:31 PM.
 2nd July 2009, 12:36 PM #460 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are *LOTS* of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements. I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process. The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image. GeeMack can correct me on this if I am misunderstanding him. Quote: He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images? All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features. Quote: Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, his one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate. (If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to be a very appropriate authority. Quote: Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image? Yes. Quote: IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event? GM and RC have made it plain to me that looking for distinct physical features in an RD image is nonsensical. This is completely different than saying that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event, which is clearly not what anybody is saying. __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC Last edited by D'rok; 2nd July 2009 at 12:46 PM.
 2nd July 2009, 12:46 PM #461 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by D'rok I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process. So we should be able to observe it in the original images, and also the RD images as "changes over time". Quote: The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image. That is false. If there were no 'flying things", (specifically plasma), we would not have a CME at all. The fact it's a CME *requires* that there be lots of flying plasma to be observed in both the original images, and as moving things in the RD images as well. Quote: All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features. That is false. A RD image from LASCO shows physical things. It shows physical stars in the background. It shows physical waves of plasma flying off the sun. It shows these things because it shows us changes over time, and also more persistent features too, as in the case of the stars and planets in the background. They physically exist in nature and they show up in the original and RD image. They show up a bit differently in the RD images than in the original images, but that "flying stuff" and those patterns exist in nature and can be observed in RD images. Quote: Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate. No, it's when you *ASSUME* a person is right *ONLY* because they are in a place of authority. Quote: (If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to a very appropriate authority. Then let him come over here and provide us with actual explanations to the details observed in these images. I'm certain he will not do a worse job that GM, but until I hear his actual explanations to these details, I can't say whether than means anything to me or not. Quote: Yes. Then you know nothing at all about these images or the processes they show us. There is no way you can "analyze" these images properly if you don't understand what you're looking at. This is a CME event. There is no way that things are not flying around in the images because that is what the images show us. They show us "changes over time" and things that do not change over time as well. If there are changes happening we will observe them.
 2nd July 2009, 12:53 PM #462 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, it's when you *ASSUME* a person is right *ONLY* because they are in a place of authority. In formal logic, it is fallacious. In informal logic, it is not. GeeMack used it correctly in its proper - i.e., informal - context. As to the rest: I don't seriously expect to dent your armour when you are oblivious to the blows of those far more qualified than me (or you). I just find your behaviour fascinating in a gory traffic accident kind of way. __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 01:08 PM #463 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That is false. If there were no 'flying things", (specifically plasma), we would not have a CME at all. The fact it's a CME *requires* that there be lots of flying plasma to be observed in both the original images, and as moving things in the RD images as well. That is false. A RD image from LASCO shows physical things. It shows physical stars in the background. It shows physical waves of plasma flying off the sun. It shows these things because it shows us changes over time, and also more persistent features too, as in the case of the stars and planets in the background. They physically exist in nature and they show up in the original and RD image. They show up a bit differently in the RD images than in the original images, but that "flying stuff" and those patterns exist in nature and can be observed in RD images. This is one of the delusions that Michael Mozina is spewing in this thread (others include that 171A band images can detect the tiny contribution from the photopsphere, magnetic fields do not contain energy, etc.). RD images never show "physical things". They are computer generated animations of changes in the radiation emitted from physical things. Thus they never show persistant physical features. The "features" in the TRACE RD animation have been explained to MM many times before but here we go again:Every pixel in every frame in the animation is a record of the change of the pixel from the previous frame. The "mountain ranges" are changes in the flares in the corona. They are probably getting brighter as they climb toward the detector. In addition the flares seem to be expanding a bit - the mountains in the "mountain range" actually appear out of nowhere during the animation (see the upper part of the animation). The "flying stuff are changes in position and temperature of the material ejected by the CME in the corona. They are neither "flying" or "stuff" in the RD animation.. They are flying stuff in the original images. Is that simple enough for you Michael Mozina? Is there any "feature" that is not explained? If so can you tell us the frame number and list the pixels in it (see the first explanation above). Also a link to the "RD image from LASCO shows physical things" would be good. My guess is that the "stars in the background" are actually a record of the changes in positions of the stars in the background. ETA: Added the bits in red. There is no way to tell from the RD animation what actvity in the corona is changing in temperature and/or position. Astronomers thus look at the original images to identify what is happerning: Quote: 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. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd July 2009 at 01:39 PM.
 2nd July 2009, 01:15 PM #465 GeeMack Banned   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". Yeah? Everyone else believes me and none of them believe you, so I'm kickin' your ass here, ain't I?
 2nd July 2009, 01:22 PM #466 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack It's been done, so you're a liar. WHICH SPECIFIC detail did you address? Details? What details? Quote: Interesting comment from a guy who apparently can't explain his own idea in a way that anyone can understand. I've done so plenty of times to people who *WISH* to actually 'understand'. Quote: Liar. This is your typically sleazy sort of response. You are the liar. You've not discussed a single detail in the image. The few things you actually stated were clearly false. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" You're pathetic
 2nd July 2009, 01:24 PM #467 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by GeeMack Yeah? Everyone else believes me and none of them believe you, so I'm kickin' your ass here, ain't I? If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Sheesh.
 2nd July 2009, 01:27 PM #468 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Sheesh. RC just explained it clearly. Again. __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 01:46 PM #469 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check This is one of the delusions that Michael Mozina is spewing in this thread (others include that 171A band images can detect the tiny contribution from the photopsphere, Er, where did I say it could detect tiny contributions from the photosphere? You made that up on your own. Quote: magnetic fields do not contain energy, etc.). I didn't say that either. I said magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a complete and fully formed continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to "reconnect" to other "lines". Quote: RD images never show "physical things". They are computer generated animations of changes in the radiation emitted from physical things. Thus they never show persistant physical features. They also show the changes *OF* physical things, like the location of the "flying stuff" blowing from the lower right toward the upper left after the CME event. It is because that "flying stuff" changes locations that we are able to watch it move! Get real. Quote: The "features" in the TRACE RD animation have been explained to MM many times before but here we go again:[list=1][*]Every pixel in every frame in the animation is a record of the change of the pixel from the previous frame. We all agree with that point. So how is that specific to any particular detail in the image? Quote: [*]The "mountain ranges" are changes in the flares. The features aren't "changing" however. Why is that? Quote: They are probably getting brighter as they climb toward the detector. Then why are the bases of the loops always brightest in the 171A solar moss images? Quote: In addition the flares seem to be expanding a bit - the mountains in the "mountain range" actually appear out of nowhere during the animation (see the upper part of the animation). They don't appear out of nowhere, the structures don't exist in the first frame because there is no image before that first frame to compare it to or subtract it from. All RD images become persistent with two usable original images, but you need a minimum of two of them. This particular image could be an "averaged' image but these items do not just "appear out of thin air". They last for days in SOHO and STEREO RD imagery. Quote: The "flying stuff are changes in position and temperature of the material ejected by the CME. Hey, you actually "explained" real visual detail of the RD image! Congrats. Quote: They are neither "flying" or "stuff" in the RD animation.. Ooops, you then blew it. False. The plasma that comes from the CME is certainly visible in the original and RD image. There is "flying stuff" in both sets of images. The lighter parts of the RD image is where the hot stuff moved to, whereas the darker regions are where the hot stuff moved from. You can see the changes over time, but those changes are directly related to flying plasma in the solar atmosphere. These features are not there just because. They are there because there is flying stuff in the atmosphere which moves during the CME process. Quote: They are flying stuff in the original images. Ok, but now which is it? Is plasma flying around in these images or not? You can't have it both ways. Quote: Is that simple enough for you Michael Mozina? Not really. You more or less contracted yourself particularly on point 3. You didn't address any of the persistent features (why they are persistent), why we observe a peeling effect during the process, etc. It's a rather limited "explanation", but you did get on thing right. Quote: Is there any "feature" that is not explained? Ya, all those persistent angular features, that peeling effect we observe, the visual changes related to the "flying stuff" after the CME, etc. There's a lot you didn't touch. Quote: If so can you tell us the frame number and list the pixels in it (see the first explanation above). Pick any of the full frames and explain the angular features. Quote: Also a link to the "RD image from LASCO shows physical things" would be good. My guess is that the "stars in the background" are actually a record of the changes in positions of teh stars in the background. Try the SOHO archives. They are arranged by date in monthly folders. Look for *_dit images. http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/ Show me any angular features in a LASCO RD images that are persistent over time and that are directly related to the RD imaging process rather than something actually in the image. Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd July 2009 at 01:53 PM.
 2nd July 2009, 01:46 PM #470 Reality Check Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521 Originally Posted by D'rok RC just explained it clearly. Again. Not only is he incapable of understanding the many simple explanations of the RD animation that he has been given over many years, he is also unable to comprehend the actual caption for the TRACE 171A image and RD animation: Coronal mass ejection Quote: 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. The bright and dark areas of his "mountain ranges" are explained by the scientists who took the images as temperature changes! The movement of his "flying stuff" is the CME ejected material flying upward and then falling back. __________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!
 2nd July 2009, 01:47 PM #471 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by D'rok RC just explained it clearly. Again. So which is it? Flying stuff, or no flying stuff?
 2nd July 2009, 01:48 PM #472 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina So which is it? Flying stuff, or no flying stuff? Flying stuff in the CME. No flying stuff in the RD images. Why is this so difficult to understand? __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 01:50 PM #473 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by Reality Check Not only is he incapable of understanding the many simple explanations of the RD animation that he has been given over many years, You mean like "flying stuff, what flying stuff"? Quote: he is also unable to comprehend the actual caption for the TRACE 171A image and RD animation: Coronal mass ejection The bright and dark areas of his "mountain ranges" are explained by the scientists who took the images as temperature changes! Nobody is disputing the statement that the bright process observed is a CME, so what does that have to do with 'mountain ranges" prior to the CME event and after the CME event is over? Those angular features are there before, during and after the CME. Quote: The movement of his "flying stuff" is the CME ejected material flying upward and then falling back. They didn't claim "flying stuff? What flying stuff?", did they?
 2nd July 2009, 01:51 PM #474 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by D'rok Flying stuff in the CME. No flying stuff in the RD images. Why is this so difficult to understand? The RD images do show the flying stuff too. You can see it move from the CME event location in the lower right, and move toward the upper left during the CME process. There is certainly "flying stuff" that shows up as brighter, *AND FAR MORE MOBILE* regions in the image. What's so difficult to understand about that?
 2nd July 2009, 01:55 PM #475 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I didn't say that either. I said magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a complete and fully formed continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to "reconnect" to other "lines". You seem to be losing track of your claims in this thread: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is *BECAUSE OF* the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy? __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 01:56 PM #476 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina The RD images do show the flying stuff too. You can see it move from the CME event location in the lower right, and move toward the upper left during the CME process. There is certainly "flying stuff" that shows up as brighter, *AND FAR MORE MOBILE* regions in the image. What's so difficult to understand about that? Allow me to be clearer: Flying stuff in the CME. Illusion of flying stuff in the RD images. Better? __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 01:57 PM #477 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...828_170708.gif FYI, here is an original image from that set which you can find on RC's link. Notice that the "flying stuff" can be seen moving up and toward the top of the image. That flying stuff moves over time and therefore it shows up in the RD image as a moving light and dark pattern moving from the lower right toward the upper left of the image. The only reason we observe these things in the RD image is because they exist in the original images too.
 2nd July 2009, 01:58 PM #478 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by D'rok Allow me to be clearer: Flying stuff in the CME. Illusion of flying stuff in the RD images. Better? Not really. It's not an "illusion" of any sort. It's a real process having a real effect on the RD images. The movement of the hot material is visible in both the original 171A images and also in the RD images. There is no "illusion" involved. It's real in every way.
 2nd July 2009, 02:03 PM #479 D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land     Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399 Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Not really. It's not an "illusion" of any sort. It's a real process having a real effect on the RD images. The movement of the hot material is visible in both the original 171A images and also in the RD images. There is no "illusion" involved. It's real in every way. You're one in a million Michael. You really are. @RC and GeeMack Thanks for the educational info and I hope your blood pressure is OK. __________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
 2nd July 2009, 02:07 PM #480 Michael Mozina Banned   Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361 Originally Posted by D'rok You seem to be losing track of your claims in this thread: The part you highlighted was perhaps overly simplistic and confusing. My bad. What I was trying to point out is that the magnetic field that we measure in this light plasma is *CAUSED BY* the flow of electrical current through the loop. A coronal loop is not a "frozen" magnetic line, but rather it is a moving column of flowing plasma full of kinetic energy, much like any discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. The magnetic fields are not there all by themselves doing all the work by themselves, and they are not driving the parade. The magnetic fields exist *BECAUSE OF* the current flow inside the loop and they are generated by the current flow inside that loop that is heating the plasma inside the loop. The field that forms does in fact "store energy", but only while the current flow remains. Once that current flow stops flowing through the loop, the field dissipates and it fades away just like when you turn off an ordinary plasma ball.

International Skeptics Forum