Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by D'rok

You're one in a million Michael. You really are.

Well, ok.

I'm still not sure why you're under the impression that this is an "illusion" of any sort. The flying hot plasma is caused by a real process (the CME) and it's visible as "flying stuff" in both the RD and original images.

It's one thing to note that the RD imaging technique is a "processed image", but it's not correct to claim there is no "flying stuff" in the image. It is also false to say that any persistence in these RD images is in any way related to the RD imaging technique itself. It can't be. It *MUST BE* associated with some *PROCESS* related to the sun itself. The RD technique cannot create any sort of persistence by itself.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I explained the reason for the varying lightness or darkness of every single pixel.

No, you did not. You only explained that "technique", not anything specific about that particular image or what's going on in that image. The few things you tried to "explain" were patently false. There is flying stuff to be observed in both image (original and RD) and there are many things you never bothered to even try to explain like the peeling effects, the reason stuff is "flying" in the first place (cause of CME), etc. The only thing you have said has been wrong. RC at least seems to know where the original light comes from in the original images (coronal loops), whereas you've made several false statements about the notion that persistence is related to the technique itself, which is clearly a bunch of baloney.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

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.

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from MM (what a surprise !).

Give a citation to the published paper or textbook that states this.

Your understanding of the scientific explanation of coronal loops (the one that actually works) is simplistic and wrong. There is not "a "frozen" magnetic line". There is a dynamic magnetic flux (involving an infinite number of magnetic lines).

As for coronal loops being "like any discharge in the Earth's atmosphere", I am sure that the concept of coronal loops being electrical disharges has been debunked many times in the years that you have been touting your crackpot idea.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS.

Perhaps. But clearly I'm vastly more persuasive with my BS than you are with your truth, since not a single soul understands you and everyone seems to accept what I'm saying. Hell, Michael, they can even repeat it back and make it understandable to other people. Damn am I good!

Now why is it that not a single solitary person on Earth who is engaged in the business of actually knowing about solar physics thinks your crackpot fantasy has any merit?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, you did not. You only explained that "technique", not anything specific about that particular image or what's going on in that image. The few things you tried to "explain" were patently false. There is flying stuff to be observed in both image (original and RD) and there are many things you never bothered to even try to explain like the peeling effects, the reason stuff is "flying" in the first place (cause of CME), etc. The only thing you have said has been wrong. RC at least seems to know where the original light comes from in the original images (coronal loops), whereas you've made several false statements about the notion that persistence is related to the technique itself, which is clearly a bunch of baloney.

You've been proven ignorant and you've been proven a liar, and you lie again and demonstrate your ignorance again. Amazing. I must say I am intrigued by how anyone could be so wrong and make such a public fool of himself for several years, and not even for a moment have a sense of the humiliation or embarrassment that a normal sane person would have. Kind of like those paranoid 9/11 conspiracy nuts and those unintelligent intelligent design proponents I'd guess.

And in case you missed this question above, why is it that not a single solitary person on Earth who is engaged in the business of actually knowing about solar physics thinks your crackpot fantasy has any merit?

[Michael Mozina]

RC's added bits of red.....

Nobody is denying that coronal loops *enter* the corona. It's where they originate (location of footprints) that we are debating.

FYI, the very name of the TRACE instrument is related to what these folks *ASSUMED* before they even launched the instrument. They simply *ASSUMED* that there was a "transition region" where plasma rises in temperature from thousands up to millions of degrees that sits somewhere above the photosphere and lower chromosphere. The existence and location of a "transitional region" high up in the atmosphere was already *ASSUMED* even before launch. Birkeland's solar model doesn't work that way, and his model "predicts" these specific sorts of observations and it predicts them to begin *UNDER* the photosphere as well as potentially above the photosphere as well.



Here is an image of a flare in a HINODE image having a direct influence on the intensity of light in the photosphere, meaning the flare started *UNDER* the photosphere, not above it. Below is another composite image which shows all sorts of 171A activity underneath of the photosphere.



http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive1.html

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Yet another unsubstantiated assertion from MM (what a surprise !).

Give a citation to the published paper or textbook that states this.

If you'd actually read Birkeland's book you wouldn't even bother asking me this question.

Quote:

Your understanding of the scientific explanation of coronal loops (the one that actually works) is simplistic and wrong. There is not "a "frozen" magnetic line". There is a dynamic magnetic flux (involving an infinite number of magnetic lines).

How exactly (in physical terms) are you defining the "flux" of a magnetic field inside of a light plasma?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, the very name of the TRACE instrument is related to what these folks *ASSUMED* before they even launched the instrument. They simply *ASSUMED* that there was a "transition region" where plasma rises in temperature from thousands up to millions of degrees that sits somewhere above the photosphere and lower chromosphere. The existence and location of a "transitional region" high up in the atmosphere was already *ASSUMED* even before launch. Birkeland's solar model doesn't work that way, and his model "predicts" these specific sorts of observations and it predicts them to begin *UNDER* the photosphere as well as potentially above the photosphere as well.

Last time you brought in a piece from Birkeland's work to support a point, you were so woefully shot down it made me laugh out loud. Let's see if you can grab a piece of unrelated crap out of the Birkeland material again and, uh, you know, demonstrate that he actually made any prediction of the sort. If you're as incompetent this time as you were last time this ought to be pretty darned funny.

Oh, and Michael, why do you suppose not a single human being on Earth with a professional position or educational credentials in any field related to astrophysics is willing to agree with your crazy notion about the Sun?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Perhaps.

I'm beginning to wonder if that isn't your whole intent actually.

Quote:

But clearly I'm vastly more persuasive with my BS than you are with your truth,

As if that is some barometer of accuracy? I'm sure the pope convinced lots of folks that Galileo was full of it too.

Quote:

since not a single soul understands you

This is a false statement. Just because you do not understand me, or agree with me, does not mean that nobody understands me. You're confusing "agreement" with undestanding.

Quote:

and everyone seems to accept what I'm saying.

Well DUH! It's also the majority opinion. What else did you expect?

Quote:

Hell, Michael, they can even repeat it back and make it understandable to other people. Damn am I good!

You aren't "good", just wrong and capable of articulating your position. So what?

Quote:

You've been proven ignorant

Oh Please! Coming from the guy who said "flying stuff? what flyng stuff", and who thinks that persistence is related to the technique rather than the solar processes, that statement sounds ridiculous.

Quote:

and you've been proven a liar, and you lie again and demonstrate your ignorance again.

You're the only liar here when you said that you "explained" every pixel of every frame!

Your debate technique is not like Tim's technique or DD's approach where they actually focus on science and the specific scientific point of debate. Instead you've become a bully and a thug, incapable of focusing on the issues. You aren't a scientist. You only know how to engage in below the belt debate tactics which have nothing to do with the images or the science. You are the least ethical personal I've ever met in cyberspace, and that is saying something. I've seen a lot in my time, but your personal approach is ugly, nasty, personal and sleazy.

The fact that none of you are actually focused on the specific details in the images (like the peeling or the process that caused these events) and you continue to fixate on the individual, not on the science only demonstrates to me that you're incapable of dealing with the processes we observe in the images. These images are the things that convinced me of the validity of Birkeland's solar model. If you won't and can't deal with them, then all that tells me is that you have no legitimate scientific answers.

All you've got are pitiful little insults to put into every single post.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Last time you brought in a piece from Birkeland's work to support a point, you were so woefully shot down it made me laugh
out loud.

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "metallic globe"?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

..snip...
RC at least seems to know where the original light comes from in the original images (coronal loops), whereas you've made several false statements about the notion that persistence is related to the technique itself, which is clearly a bunch of baloney.

Wrong and yet another lie.

The light for the original images comes mostly from the corona which is a fairly constant overall glow. There is also contribution from the coronal loops and the CME.
The light from the coronal loops is would be normal to the loops.
The light from the CME would be from the upper right.
The running difference animation has no light sources - it is a computer generated representation of the changes in the original images.

If you were to mistaking apply the running differences to the light sources (or even more idiotically allow the original light sources to illuminate the RD animation) then it is obvious that the "shadows" (actually areas of dimming corona) point in the wrong direction.

• The corona illumination would be removed by the RD processing.
• The coronal loop illumination would light up the sides of the "mountain ranges" equally. There would be no shadows. If it did not change then it would be removed by the RD processing.
• That leaves the CME illumination from the upper right.
  That means that in your delusional interpretation of the RD animation all of the "shadows" must be to the lower left.

For the blind among us (Hi MM ) note the following:
The "shadows" in the RD animation point on most directions. For example

• There are "shadows" on the upper "slopes" to the left of the animation center.
• There are "shadows" on the lower "slopes" to the right of the animation center.
• There are "shadows" on the left hand "slopes" in the animation center.

There is of course the little fact that there are no shadows in the RD animation. The TRACE scientists themselves state "where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed".

These are temperature changes associated with the coronal loops. The coronal loops do not change position much during the time that the original images were taken. Thus the RD animations shows these temperature changes as hapenning in roughly the same location in each frame.

If this was the first time that MM had seen the images and he was ignorant of the process that created them then it would be excusable for him to think that there were "mountain ranges". But

• A moment's thought would have him discard that notion since the "shadows" are pointed in different directions.
• He has known about the running difference process for many years.
• There have been many attempts to explain what is going on to him (dozens in this thread alone).

He has held onto this notion for years despite the obvious flaws that a child can see.
The conclusion must be that Michael Mozina is a delusional crackpot.

Hopefully he will continue to post here and we will continue to expose him as what he is so that other people are not fooled by his rhetoric.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "metallic globe"?

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "analogy"?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

RC's added bits of red.....

Nobody is denying that coronal loops *enter* the corona. It's where they originate (location of footprints) that we are debating.

No one is debating this. Coronal loops originate under the photosphere. They are loops of magnetic flux that extend from many kilometers below the visible surface of the Sun to many kilometers into the corona.

What we know (and are not debating) is that the TRACE 171A pass band cannot see the coronal loops as they enter the photosphere. All of the images in this band display activity in the corona. All of the images in this band have a "base" for the loop that is above the photosphere.

Pretty picture time!

MM: Explain tha gap in this image between the "base" in the TRACE 171A pass band image and the photosphere.
Moss at the Limb:

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "metallic globe"?

I mean where every single other person in the conversation who had any comment about it said you clearly had not supported your wacky claim. That's the one.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You mean where you refused to read or comprehend the term "analogy"?

He built *PHYSICAL EXPERIMENTS* and showed *HOW IT WORKS* with a real *METALLIC GLOBE*. You evidently can't tell an "analogy" from a "working model".

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I mean where every single other person in the conversation who had any comment about it said you clearly had not supported your wacky claim. That's the one.

OMG. Get real. Every single physical experiment that he performed with his cathode metallic sphere was a physical demonstration of his (actually a team of friends) solar model. He even went so far as to postulate an energy source of a sun build of heavy elements, specifically uranium. Not a single one of them would have failed to recognize the significance of their own physical experiments and the solar satellite imagery of the 21st century. They built a "working model", complete with "coronal loops", "jets", "solar wind" etc, and all of it, every single bit of it was dependent upon and *REQUIRED* a metallic sphere to make it work right.

Now if you have some other "working model" you'd like to show me, I'm all eyes and ears. If not, I'll rely upon *EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION*, not your "wacky" ideas.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

No one is debating this. Coronal loops originate under the photosphere. They are loops of magnetic flux that extend from many kilometers below the visible surface of the Sun to many kilometers into the corona.

So any light they emit, particularly at their base where they emit the most light, will be likely to be visible far below the photosphere. What density are you claiming relates to the surface of the photosphere? How do you know how far below the photosphere we might observe this "flux" you're talking about?

What heats a single coronal loop in your opinion?

Quote:

What we know (and are not debating) is that the TRACE 171A pass band cannot see the coronal loops as they enter the photosphere. All of the images in this band display activity in the corona.

How do you know that they all originate in the "corona", as opposed to the chromosphere, or below the chrmosphere?

Quote:

All of the images in this band have a "base" for the loop that is above the photosphere.

You'll have to explain how you can be sure of that because once it actually leaves the photosphere, what prevents it from being observed?

Quote:

Pretty picture time!

MM: Explain tha gap in this image between the "base" in the TRACE 171A pass band image and the photosphere.

I explain the "gap" as an unintentional but systematic "bias" they used when placing one image over the other. They named this spacecraft TRACE, to observe events in a predetermined "transitional region", which they *ASSUMED* to be located above the photosphere.

They laid the images on each other based upon that bias, not upon their actual physical location.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Your debate technique is not like Tim's technique or DD's approach where they actually focus on science and the specific scientific point of debate. Instead you've become a bully and a thug, incapable of focusing on the issues. You aren't a scientist. You only know how to engage in below the belt debate tactics which have nothing to do with the images or the science. You are the least ethical personal I've ever met in cyberspace, and that is saying something. I've seen a lot in my time, but your personal approach is ugly, nasty, personal and sleazy.

Well you open your web site with an image that you seriously misunderstand. I've been on that image from the beginning. Once you understand how wrong you are about that, I might move on. But for the time being, my focus is your misinterpretation of that image and running difference images in general. In over three years you haven't been able to explain that first image on your site, and some of us are still waiting to see if you ever will. Of course we're doubting it.

And since the images have been explained by many people over many years time, it's easy to call you a liar when you lie about them not being explained. If you've got a problem with me calling a liar a liar, perhaps you should stop lying. Your credibility, if you ever had any, deteriorates every time you plainly and openly lie.

Quote:

The fact that none of you are actually focused on the specific details in the images (like the peeling or the process that caused these events) and you continue to fixate on the individual, not on the science only demonstrates to me that you're incapable of dealing with the processes we observe in the images. These images are the things that convinced me of the validity of Birkeland's solar model. If you won't and can't deal with them, then all that tells me is that you have no legitimate scientific answers.

I guess until you can bring in your expert in solar image acquisition and analysis, mine will have to do. And he says you're wrong. And everyone accepts his judgement on the issue. Too bad you can't just accept that, remove your ridiculously incorrect commentary about running difference images from your web site, stop lying about them here and in other forums, and move along to other areas of your claim (in which, I might add, you've been equally unable to make even the remotest headway).

Quote:

All you've got are pitiful little insults to put into every single post.

Stop lying and people won't call you a liar. Stop writing such stupid things and people won't suspect that you're stupid. Stop flying in the face of stone cold reality and people will stop calling you deluded. Start to actually understand what is being said and making your own points in a clear and understandable way and people won't accuse you of having a communication problem. Show that you know a little bit about the mathematics of the physics and people won't assume you're completely incapable of doing math. Demonstrate that you grasp the method of science and you won't be accused of being a crackpot. You're incorrectly perceiving these things as insults when they're actually just truths being written by people who are frustrated with your incompetence in virtually every area of this discussion.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I explain the "gap" as an unintentional but systematic "bias" they used when placing one image over the other. They named this spacecraft TRACE, to observe events in a predetermined "transitional region", which they *ASSUMED* to be located above the photosphere.

They laid the images on each other based upon that bias, not upon their actual physical location.

Because they don't understand simple high school geometry and you do? That's all it takes to align the images correctly. You ought to get a job in the astrophysics industry you math wizard, you!

Michael, why is it that not one single person professionally involved in the science of solar physics anywhere on this planet believes your fruitcake fantasy has enough merit to work with you to flesh it out? Bias on their part? Stupidity on their part? On yours? You're a crappy communicator? Seriously. Why do you suppose nobody is stepping up to say they agree with you and to help you get this crazy notion moved into the mainstream?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Wrong and yet another lie.

Hoy. You folks and the personal attacks. It's really unprofessional, especially since you refuse to discuss important details like the peeling, the persistent angular features, etc.

Quote:

The light for the original images comes mostly from the corona which is a fairly constant overall glow.

Where's that "glow" in the TRACE/Yohkoh composite, and since Thompson scattering will occur in the solar atmosphere, so what? One thing we can be sure of, the loops are the "hot zone" and emit the most light.

Quote:

There is also contribution from the coronal loops and the CME.

What part can you be sure of is not related to some form of a coronal loop, large or small? Not all discharges or "loops" have to be more than 350 kilometers in size.

Quote:

The light from the coronal loops is would be normal to the loops.

What generates that light by heating the plasma to millions of degrees for hours on end? What makes a single loop "shine", footprint to footprint if not electrical current?

Quote:

The light from the CME would be from the upper right.

What's generating that light? In other words the photosphere and even the chromosphere are quite cool in comparison the minimum 160,000 degrees (likely around 1 million degrees) required to be seen as a bright area in a 171A image? Let's get into "cause/effect" relationships here and talk about what causes a CME. Alfven of course attributed this to a "explosive double layer" event.

Quote:

The running difference animation has no light sources

This statement is false actually. It has *TWO* light sources, or one light source (same loop), and two image sources. One image is simply subtracted from the other and we're left with intensity changes from one image to the next on a pixel by pixel basis.

Quote:

- it is a computer generated representation of the changes in the original images.

That part is true, but it is is not true that there NO light sources. The light source of a RD image is still the same light source of the original images. In other words, whatever lights up the the bright points of each image is the original light source and when we subtract one image from another, we get a 'change in lighting" between images.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Well you open your web site with an image that you seriously misunderstand.

Considering your "flying stuff?, What flying stuff?" commentary, I have no faith in your understanding of a running difference image.

Quote:

I've been on that image from the beginning.

You've been wrong from the very start too.

Quote:

Once you understand how wrong you are about that, I might move on.

Once you explain some of the details of the imagery that could or might happen, but as long as you remain a coward and hide from every detail, and make false statements, that's never going to happen.

Quote:

But for the time being, my focus is your misinterpretation of that image and running difference images in general. In over three years you haven't been able to explain that first image on your site, and some of us are still waiting to see if you ever will. Of course we're doubting it.

I think what I'll do when I finally do "explain" it this time is create a website page and post a link. That way I won't have to keep repeating myself.

Quote:

And since the images have been explained by many people over many years time,

Baloney. The only "explanations" that have been done have been A) in your case simply wrong or B) not focused on many if any of the specific observations in the RD image. "Peeling? What peeling? Flying plasma? What flying plasma?"

Quote:

it's easy to call you a liar when you lie about them not being explained.

When you explain them, tell me which specific observation and quadrant of the frame, and observation in that quadrant you are choosing to explain and then explain the cause/effect relationships you are attempting to use to explain this observation. Until I see such a thing, stop claiming you "explained" anything at all you coward.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Because they don't understand simple high school geometry and you do?

No, because they *EXPECTED/ASSUMED* they would find it in a specific location, and I did not.

FYI, I noticed that you didn't address either the composite white light/171A image from LMSAL, or the Hinode image of the photosphere lighting up during a flare event. Do you think anyone else noticed that omission, or noticed that you never talked about any specific frame of the RD image, or any specific quadrant of the image, or any observed event in the frame?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

FYI, I noticed that you didn't address either the composite white light/171A image from LMSAL, or the Hinode image of the photosphere lighting up during a flare event. Do you think anyone else noticed that omission, or noticed that you never talked about any specific frame of the RD image, or any specific quadrant of the image, or any observed event in the frame?

I'm waiting for you to admit you're wrong about running difference images, or at least admit that you simply are unable to convince anyone that you're right.

And by the way, why do you continue to ignore this? What sort of reason would you give for the fact that no professional physicist in the world is willing to agree with you about that solid surfaced Sun crap? Are they stupid, every single one? Are you? Is the bias truly so deep that tens of thousands of them willingly ignore your truth? None of them wants a Nobel prize? You're the smartest man on Earth? You're the crummiest communicator in the entire field of astrophysics? What is it, Michael, that makes it impossible for you to get anyone to come around to your way of seeing this?

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

I'm waiting for you to admit you're wrong about running difference images,

Wrong about what specific statement?

Quote:

or at least admit that you simply are unable to convince anyone that you're right.

Anyone here, or anyone in general?

How many times did you intend to stoop to a pitiful appeal to authority fallacy? Let me see you get Dr. Hurlburt to agree with you that we can see *NO* flying plasma in a RD image, and that that NO solar based light sources are involved in the creation of this image. Let's see him agree with you that persistence is a function of the RD process rather than a solar process while you're at it.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

...snip...
That part is true, but it is is not true that there NO light sources. The light source of a RD image is still the same light source of the original images. In other words, whatever lights up the the bright points of each image is the original light source and when we subtract one image from another, we get a 'change in lighting" between images.

That post is full of the usual demonstration of MM's ignorance so most of it is snipped.

The last bit of stupidity is the notion that RD animations have "light sources" that are the same as the light sources in the original images. Any constant light source is removed by the RD processing. What you are left with changes in light sources. A graphical representation of a change in a light source is not a light source. The changes in the light sources are listed in my original post (duplicated below for MM's ignorance).
The "or even more idiotically allow the original light sources to illuminate the RD animation" comment now applies to MM.

Notice that he ignored an important point. If someone was stupid enough to think that the RD animation had "light sources" then the "shadows" are impossible.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Wrong and yet another lie.

The light for the original images comes mostly from the corona which is a fairly constant overall glow. There is also contribution from the coronal loops and the CME.
The light from the coronal loops is would be normal to the loops.
The light from the CME would be from the upper right.
The running difference animation has no light sources - it is a computer generated representation of the changes in the original images.


If you were to mistaking apply the running differences to the light sources (or even more idiotically allow the original light sources to illuminate the RD animation) then it is obvious that the "shadows" (actually areas of dimming corona) point in the wrong direction.

• The corona illumination would be removed by the RD processing.
• The coronal loop illumination would light up the sides of the "mountain ranges" equally. There would be no shadows. If it did not change then it would be removed by the RD processing.
• That leaves the CME illumination from the upper right.
  That means that in your delusional interpretation of the RD animation all of the "shadows" must be to the lower left.

For the blind among us (Hi MM ) note the following:


The "shadows" in the RD animation point on most directions. For example

• There are "shadows" on the upper "slopes" to the left of the animation center.
• There are "shadows" on the lower "slopes" to the right of the animation center.
• There are "shadows" on the left hand "slopes" in the animation center.

There is of course the little fact that there are no shadows in the RD animation. The TRACE scientists themselves state "where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed".


These are temperature changes associated with the coronal loops. The coronal loops do not change position much during the time that the original images were taken. Thus the RD animations shows these temperature changes as hapenning in roughly the same location in each frame.


If this was the first time that MM had seen the images and he was ignorant of the process that created them then it would be excusable for him to think that there were "mountain ranges". But

• A moment's thought would have him discard that notion since the "shadows" are pointed in different directions.
• He has known about the running difference process for many years.
• There have been many attempts to explain what is going on to him (dozens in this thread alone).

He has held onto this notion for years despite the obvious flaws that a child can see.

The conclusion must be that Michael Mozina is a delusional crackpot.

Hopefully he will continue to post here and we will continue to expose him as what he is so that other people are not fooled by his rhetoric.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That post is full of the usual demonstration of MM's ignorance so most of it is snipped.

The last bit of stupidity is the notion that RD animations have "light sources" that are the same as the light sources in the original images. Any constant light source is removed by the RD processing.

That is physically impossible since there is a time lag between images. The surface, loops and everything else moves between the two images.

Quote:

What you are left with changes in light sources.

No, we are left with a change in pixel intensity from one frame to the next and the surface moves between images, as do the loops and everything else.

No wonder you are confused. Evidently you are under the impression that both images are taken at exactly the same instant. That is not so. The time lag between images will have a direct and obvious effect on a 'running difference' image. If you look at two images a short time apart you get a very different outcome than if you take two images a long time (distance) apart. The rotation of the sun between the two images is going to create a difference between the two images!

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The last bit of stupidity is the notion that RD animations have "light sources"

The notion that there are NO light sources is utter "stupidity". What exactly do you figure that they are subtracting from one image or another if not the *PIXEL INTENSITY* from one or more light sources on the sun?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So any light they emit, particularly at their base where they emit the most light, will be likely to be visible far below the photosphere. What density are you claiming relates to the surface of the photosphere? How do you know how far below the photosphere we might observe this "flux" you're talking about?

We are talking about the TRACE 171A pass band so:

• What do you mean by "the most light".
• The dentisy of what?
• What has this density got to do with the physical fact that the TRACE 171A pass band cannot detect light from the photosphere or below?
• The distance below the photosphere for detecting light emitted from plasma heated by the coronal loop magnetic flux in the 171A pass band is about -3000 km (note the negative number, i.e. above the photosphere).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What heats a single coronal loop in your opinion?

The same thing that heats all of them. I do not have an opinion.
Currently there is only the observation that coronal loops heat plasma from ~6000 K to millions of K. The exact mechanisms causing it are unknown. That is why there is so much research being done on coronal loops and why you have so many pretty pictures to be wrong about.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How do you know that they all originate in the "corona", as opposed to the chromosphere, or below the chrmosphere?

Saying "corona" is just shorthand for "the top of the chromosphere, the transition region and the corona"
All of the images "originate" in the top of the chromosphere, the transition region and the corona because these are where the plasma is heated to make significant anounts of radiation that can be detected by the TRACE 171A pass band (i.e. 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You'll have to explain how you can be sure of that because once it actually leaves the photosphere, what prevents it from being observed?

Nothing stops it from being observed in general. It is probally detected in some of images from solar observing scpacecraft.

This is about your delusion that it can be detected in the TRACE 171A pass band (i.e. 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I explain the "gap" as an unintentional but systematic "bias" they used when placing one image over the other. They named this spacecraft TRACE, to observe events in a predetermined "transitional region", which they *ASSUMED* to be located above the photosphere.

They laid the images on each other based upon that bias, not upon their actual physical location.

So now the astronomers are so incompetent that they do not know where the Sun is or where their spacecraft are wrt the Sun?
In that case why do you trust any of their images? Who knows the TRACE images may be of "coronal loops" in a lab here on Earth!

In any case the image is just supporting evidence for the physical fact that the TRACE 171A pass band will not detect any radiation form the photosphere or below.

[Michael Mozina]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

We are talking about the TRACE 171A pass band so:

• What do you mean by "the most light".

• Since we are talking about a plasma atmosphere, there could be all sorts of Thompson scatter effects present in these images. There are however specific "light sources", namely the coronal loops that clearly emit that most light at the greatest intensity. The coronal loops are certainly the primary light source of the original 171A image.
  
  
  Quote:
• The dentisy of what?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Wrong about what specific statement?

Wrong about seeing 4000 kilometers into the photosphere and wrong about running difference images showing some kind of solid features. Wrong about everything about running difference images that you claim supports your delusion. You know, those things you're wrong about.

Quote:

Anyone here, or anyone in general?

Anyone who has been involved in any of the discussions here, at SFN, or at BAUT in particular. Anyone who participates professionally in any field related to solar physics in general. That's an awful lot of people, Michael, compared to the zero people among those groups who accept your position.

Quote:

How many times did you intend to stoop to a pitiful appeal to authority fallacy? Let me see you get Dr. Hurlburt to agree with you that we can see *NO* flying plasma in a RD image, and that that NO solar based light sources are involved in the creation of this image. Let's see him agree with you that persistence is a function of the RD process rather than a solar process while you're at it.

Well I intend to continue to remind you, and any lurkers, that the person responsible for developing and implementing the TRACE program, acquiring the image data from the TRACE satellite, analyzing the data, processing the data into graphical representations of changes from image to image, and distributing the data, says you're wrong. He said that there's no surface in the running difference images, no features, nothing static or solid. Guess we'll all have to accept his word on it. You weren't involved in any way in that project, so you couldn't possibly know more about it than he does. And you haven't been able to refute his position other than to throw a tantrum and whine that he's wrong.

Of course you've been reminded before what an appeal to authority fallacy actually is, and you're wrong about your use of that term, too. But a simple, concise explanation is so often lost on you, it's no surprise you've screwed up that one and fall back to using it incorrectly. But moving on, in case you start crying because you think you're being picked on again...

Now if you know of someone out there, a professional in the field of solar physics, whose opinion you would accept on that issue, bring him/her in here. Or name him/her. Name the person whose expertise you would respect, whose opinion you would accept if they were to tell you you're wrong. I notice, and it doesn't go unnoticed by anyone else watching, that so far you have nobody willing to come in and lend a hand here. Nobody in the field of astrophysics who agrees with you. Why is that, Michael?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Since we are talking about a plasma atmosphere, there could be all sorts of Thompson scatter effects present in these images. There are however specific "light sources", namely the coronal loops that clearly emit that most light at the greatest intensity. The coronal loops are certainly the primary light source of the original 171A image.

Perhaps. In that case you are defintiely wrong (see my previous post).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The density of the surface of the photosphere. How "thick" do you presume it to be exactly?

Photosphere:

Quote:

The visible surface of the Sun, the photosphere, is the layer below which the Sun becomes opaque to visible light. Above the photosphere visible sunlight is free to propagate into space, and its energy escapes the Sun entirely. The change in opacity is due to the decreasing amount of H− ions, which absorb visible light easily. Conversely, the visible light we see is produced as electrons react with hydrogen atoms to produce H− ions.[45][46] The photosphere is actually tens to hundreds of kilometers thick, being slightly less opaque than air on Earth. Because the upper part of the photosphere is cooler than the lower part, an image of the Sun appears brighter in the center than on the edge or limb of the solar disk, in a phenomenon known as limb darkening. Sunlight has approximately a black-body spectrum that indicates its temperature is about 6,000 K, interspersed with atomic absorption lines from the tenuous layers above the photosphere. The photosphere has a particle density of ~1023 m−3 (this is about 1% of the particle density of Earth's atmosphere at sea level).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

We can observe lightening in the Earth's atmosphere from space. What makes you think we could not see a discharge from below the photosphere at a high energy wavelength?

Firstly because the Sun's photoshpere is a little different from the Earths.
Secondly there is no discharge to observe below the photosphere because a coronal loop is not a discharge (of what?)

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How did you make that negative number determination?

I looked it up

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Which natural force heats plasma to those temperatures here on Earth during lightning storm and such?

What relevance doe this have to the Sun and coronal loops?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So we should not see anything "deep" in the chromosphere either. In other words all the activity should occur far in the upper atmosphere, above the base of the chromosophere too, say 80-90 of the way to chromosphere?

That is right for the 171A pass band.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What specific thing makes it difficult to detect that particular wavelength in the atmosphere of the sun, particularly the chromosphere and photosphere?

Why?
ETA: Because "that particular wavelength" is strongly emitted by material heated to between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K.
Material with temperatures of ~6000 K (the photosphere) have a tiny amount of "that particular wavelength". I do not know the exact number but you with your encyclopedic knowledge of solar physics should be able to supply us with it .

First asked 3rd July 2009:
MM: How much 171A light does the photosphere emit?
MM: How much 171A light does a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface heated to less than 2000 K emit?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How about that Hinode image where the surface of the photosphere lights up? How about that lit filament in the image going into the sunspot. What is that about?

It sounds like sunspot with a lit filament .

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's not supporting evidence of anything except their original bias when they named this spacecraft before even sending into space. I'm sure it's an honest mistake, but it was done even before launch.

So now you are basing your science on the names of spacecraft?

They named the spacecraft after its primary research purpose. Their "bias" is that they designed and named a spacecraft to primarily look at events in the transition zone and corona.

How idiotic would a person be to think that a a spacecraft designed with an instrument with a filter that only detects light from material in the transition zone and corona can only detect light from material in the transition zone and corona when using that filter?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Nobody in the field of astrophysics who agrees with you. Why is that, Michael?

My degree is actually in solid state physics and even I can see that Micheal Mozina is wrong. It would take a very dumb undergraduate science student to not see how much MM is deluded.

[Reality Check]

First asked 3rd July 2009:

A couple of simple questions for Micheal Mozina.
Since you think that a detector with a 171A pass band filter can see the photosphere and below:

1. How much 171A light does the photosphere emit?
2. How much 171A light does a hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface heated to less than 2000 K emit?
   (you can assume the temperature is actually 2000 K rather then 1 K).

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

The magnetic field lines are naturally closed, the close again under the "surface" of the Sun. Why would the not. And yes, maybe to the uninitiated some of the terms that physicists use are a bit strange, when we talk about "open field line" for example, we do not mean that they are just flapping around on one end, we mean that the are not returning to the point where we see that the other starting point is.


Well, birkie was wrong then and bruce (whoever he is) too. It is not a discharge, it is escaping magnetic field from the surface of the sun. The terella experiment was only a analogue (as in your quoted birkie text) and an analogue does not mean that exactly the same is happening on the sun


Birkeland currents (in the global usage, which I do not favour, but anyway) are just field aligned currents, nothing magical nothing special, but happening in magnetized plasmas over which an EMF is placed (beit through shearing or induction or what) and when these currents flow, their toroidal field will be added to the main field of the loop or filament or what-have-you-nots and twist the field. What is the big deal here? The fact that they are twisted means that there is current flowing which means that there is Ohmic dissipation. And how much dissipation, you might be surprised about how much, look it up in the literature.


No, wrong, get your definitions straight! A Birkeland current is a magnetic field aligned current, which will cause a toroidal field around the main field, and then you get a twist.

In special cases you may call this a magnetic rope (e.g. you may not call it that when you are discussing the REAL Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere) magnetic ropes are single entities, found e.g. in the solar wind, and whether or not it pinches is a whole different question.


Wrong comparison MM, the shear of the magnetic field causes a time change of the magnetic field which creates an electric field which drives currents which can Ohmically dissipate.

I do always claim that plasma is a gas, but only for the right situations. Talking about magnetic shear and the currents it drives cannot be compared with a simple gas model like "shear winds" because now we are dealing with a real plasmaphysical phenomenon.

And what makes you think that a shear scenario would be short lived? Read the papers describing this process? There are certain conditions that need to be fullfilled for a loop to flare, and it takes time to build that up.

What witch trial? I only object to false interpretations of the things that Birkeland has done, like the claims you are making.

Boy your story has changed since we've talked last!

Why are you people so deluded on the concept of magnetic reconnection??

Why do we not extract energy here on the Earths surface that utilizes this "majik" magnetic reconnection?

Just take two ferromagnets and wave them past each other and bingo!!

Magnetic Reconnection by Michael Suede

Quote:

Hannes Alfvén was explicit in his condemnation of the reconnecting concept:

"Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer. Despite.. this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept.

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

They have reinvented the wheel and done a bad job of it. If you are going to come up with an alternative explanation for something – at least get one that is defensible scientifically.

If we look closely at the reason for this reinvention, it becomes clear that, having adamantly refused to acknowledge the effects (let alone the existence) of electric currents in space, astrophysicists had to come up with an explanation that avoided mentioning them. Moreover, in giving this explanation a catchy name – “reconnection” – that appears repetitively, they can avoid restating the details of their invented explanation each time they use it and thus avoid having to defend it. We hear “Oh, that is an example of reconnection.” “Yes, another effect of the reconnection process.” Etc., ad nauseum.

In the law, a well known principle is that ‘Ignorance of the law is no defense.’ Similarly in science, intentional ignorance of the work of an entire academy of scholars and researchers that has applicability to the area in which you are involved, is evidence of either incompetence or a lack of ethical behavior. There can be no excuse for astrophysicists ignoring the work of investigators such as Nobel laureates Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir.

My bold!




but you go on believing that reconnection is a physical event, see where that gets you and I'm sure you'll work it out soon enough!

remember

Quote:

Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group."

Hell even MR ,if where true, would still "prove" that the EM force is the DOMINATE force in the Universe and not gravity, either way bye bye Big Bang!!!

Iron core to the Sun???

I reckon so!

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Iron core to the Sun???

I reckon so!

Solid iron surface?

[Vermonter]

Even a student who has only taken a freshmen astronomy course or two would see that he and the other "Electric Universe" proponents are not even wrong. I'm a computer science person with physics as an interest.

Michael, you haven't convinced a single person on this forum, or on BAUT, or anywhere. No bystander has spoke up and said "I agree with Michael Mozina". Not even other proponents of "Electric Universe" theories agree with you. Unfortunately, you are alone in your fight. As long as you continue to be ignorant of what is around you and basic physics, you'll continue to be laughed at and ridiculed. There is no conspiracy, just the cold truth.

I've asked some folks who aren't into physics to look at this thread, and they have agreed that you present your arguements in a poorly constructed fashion, and you are unable to comprehend what is placed in front of you.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

but you go on believing that reconnection is a physical event, see where that gets you and I'm sure you'll work it out soon enough!

Tell the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

Quote:

Funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, PPPL physicists now have available a new device -- the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) -- to study this basic phenomena. MRX is a result of the reconfiguration of the Proto S-1C spheromak, a fusion research machine which was operated at PPPL in the early 1980s.

The Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment

Quote:

The Swarthmore Spheromak Experiment (SSX) studies fundamental plasma physics phenomena such as magnetic reconnection using rings of plasma called spheromaks. Current experiments measure the energy and angular distribution of particles that are accelerated by magnetic reconnection of two merging spheromaks. Undergraduate students are involved in all aspects of research including designing and conducting the experiments and writing papers. SSX is located in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Swarthmore College.

MIT Plasma Science&Fusion Center

Quote:

At high temperatures plasmas are generally "frozen" to magnetic field lines. Many plasmas, however, can occasionally break free rapidly in a process called "magnetic reconnection."
Based on experiments on the Versatile Toroidal Facility (VTF), the group led by Professor Jan Egedal has gained significant new insight into the fundamental mechanisms that allow magnetic field lines to break and reconnect at rapid rates. The experiments show that kinetic effects related to particle orbits can cause the breakdown of the classical theories. A new theoretical model of reconnection, developed on the basis of the experimental findings in VTF, is now successfully being applied in the interpretation of recent satellite data obtained during reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail. A new experimental configuration in VTF aims to understand the role that turbulence may play in expediting rapid reconnection.

etc.

ETA:
You will really like this summary since it was published in the IEEE (the journel beloved by EU proponents)
Studies of magnetic reconnection in a laboratory plasma

Quote:

Summary form only given. Magnetic reconnection is an ubiquitous process in space and the laboratory, causing topological change, acceleration and heating in ideal plasmas. Reconnection plays a lead role in the interaction of the solar wind with the magnetosphere and also in the dynamics of magnetic field in the solar corona. The conversion of magnetic energy to plasma flows and thermal energy associated with reconnection is speculated to be the cause of the energy release and coronal heating associated with solar flares. The Magnetic Reconnection eXperiment (MRX) was constructed in 1995 to study magnetic reconnection in a high-Lundqvist number (S=τresistive/τAlfven) plasma. The experiment has been operated in a nearly axisymmetric (2-D) reconnection geometry, and has yielded many exciting results. Formation of double-Y and O-shaped diffusion regions have been observed, depending on the presence of a third field component. The merging rate is seen to be faster in the null-helicity (no toroidal field component) configuration than in the co-helicity configuration (relatively strong background toroidal field), where O-point formation is observed. Using a high-density magnetic probe array, the width of the current sheet (δ) in MRX can be accurately measured. In the null-helicity case, the neutral sheet width is on the order of the ion gyroradius (ρi) and the ion skin depth (c/ωp,i). Through control of the plasma density, plasmas can be created in MRX in the collisional (λe,mfp≲δ) and collisionless (λe,mfp≪δ) regimes

[Sol88]

spheromaks???

Quote:

What spheromaks are: Spheromaks are plasmas with very large internal currents and internal magnetic fields that are aligned so as to be in a nearly force-free equilibrium, i.e., the currents are very nearly parallel to the magnetic fields. The spheromak equilibrium is a `natural' state since magnetic turbulence tends to drive magnetically dominated plasmas towards the spheromak state.

Quote:

Spheromak technology: Laboratory spheromaks involve very large currents, typically 100's of kiloamperes and high voltages, typically kilovolts. These currents and voltages are obtained using high energy capacitor banks which are switched in microseconds. The formation geometry is arranged such that magnetic flux cuts across the electrodes connected to the capacitor bank. This configurations generates helicity (twistedness) in the flux tube going from one electrode to the other. With enough helicity a spheromak is formed.

Oh oh....plasmoids!!!

Quote:

A plasmoid is a coherent structure of plasma and magnetic fields. Plasmoids have been proposed to explain natural phenomena such as ball lightning,[1] magnetic bubbles in the magnetosphere,[2] and objects in cometary tails,[3] in the solar wind,[4][5] in the solar atmosphere,[6] and in the heliospheric current sheet. Plasmoids produced in the laboratory include Field-Reversed Configurations, Spheromaks, and the dense plasma focus.

The word plasmoid was coined in 1956 by Winston H. Bostick (1916-1991) to mean a "plasma-magnetic entity":[7]

Mmmm....let's see how "we" make spheromak (plasmoids)...

Dense plasma focus

Quote:

The charged bank of electrical capacitors (also called a Marx bank or Marx generator) is switched onto the anode. The gas breaks down. A rapidly rising electric current flows across the backwall electrical insulator, axisymmetrically, as depicted by the path (labeled 1) as shown in the Fig 1. The axisymmetric sheath of plasma current lifts off the insulator due to the interaction of the current with its own magnetic field (J×B force). The plasma sheath is accelerated axially, to position 2, and then to position 3, ending the axial phase of the device.

Electricity???? No way, you say!

keep going boys and girls

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Solid iron surface?

Mmm... I'm going with an iron core not solid iron surface, which is a plasma.

Meaning to say I do not necessarily agree with MM, but he is on the right track!

Unlike NASA, ESA...et cetera! Who are still playing in the sand box

[Sol88]

PS

I'm still at a loss when the mainstream talk "magnetic reconnection" with NO mention of the ELECTRIC current that forms the plasma that is MAGNETICALLY RECONNECTING????

Why?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by Sol88

PS

I'm still at a loss when the mainstream talk "magnetic reconnection" with NO mention of the ELECTRIC current that forms the plasma that is MAGNETICALLY RECONNECTING????

Why?

That is because there need not be any electric current forming the plasma - all you need is heat from any source, e.g. fusion. It is easier in experiments here on Earth to use electricity.

The plasma is not magnetically reconnecting. It is the magnetic field in the plasma that is reconnecting.