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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Reply
Old 5th July 2009, 03:19 PM   #601
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
I am not assuming that electrical fields ("electricity?) do not occur on the Sun. That is silly and no scientist would or does this. There is a thing called electromagnetism. If you have magnetic fields (as in coronal loops) then you have electrical fields also.
Ditto on the Electricity generates magnetic fields issue. There's a "cause/effect" relationship here that you have backwards. Current flow causes the magnetic field to form in our atmosphere. Ditto on the sun. You seem to insist magnetic fields do all the work when in nature it is the *CURRENT FLOW* that generates the magnetic field. Why are you putting the cart before the horse?

Quote:
I do know a little about plasmas.
I do know that electrical (and ionic) currents in plasmas are caused by charge being separated.
And Birkeland created charge separation even on a cathode sphere. The key issue here is Birkeland created a working model of these discharge processes. When did you ever see a full sphere full of arcs like this from "magnetic reconnection" theory?

Quote:
I do know that charge separations in plasmas are limited to a few tens of Debye lengths:
Why did Birkeland's sphere generate loops in the atmosphere? How is current flow in plasma in any way limited to a Debye length?

Quote:
This is all moot because of your ignorance of basic physics has lead you to your biggest delusion:
That the TRACE detector when using the 171A pass band filter can see anything below the chromosphere.
You'd have to demonstrate your case and address any of the three other images I provided to support your case. The only "delusion" here is your belief that a very thin plasma like a photosphere will block light on every single wavelength. Even in your own model there would be nothing to prevent us from seeing the arc down to the surface of the photosphere and to whatever depth it actually penetrates the photosphere. Do you figure that happens in the first inch or two?

The fact that you and GM rely upon the term "delusion" so often and that you both of you avoid the specific details of this image like the plague only demonstrates to me how pathetic you've become. You've got nothing in terms of scientific explanations to offer, and therefore the personal attack is your only pitiful means of debate.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 03:27 PM   #602
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Talking about electrical currents and plasmas, I think that this post by ben m in reply to Micheal Mozina in the Magnetic Reconnection thread applies:
What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 03:44 PM   #603
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What did you expect me to say to an appeal to authority fallacy that is based upon blind conjecture? When did you personally take a pole?

I thought it would be interesting to see your reasoning as to why not a single physics professional or educator on Earth agrees with your lunatic solid surface Sun fantasy. I contend that you haven't ever provided any objective evidence to support your crazy idea, and the fact that not another soul accepts your analysis bears that out. I contend that if you're correct, given not a single professional supporter, you're the single most incompetent communicator who ever claimed to be a scientist. I contend that if there was even the remotest possibility that you're correct, at least one person who is qualified to describe the physics involved would be willing to work with you and get a piece of that Nobel prize sitting just inches outside your grasp.

But what did I expect? I expected you to avoid the question because it would require you to acknowledge a very uncomfortable truth, that being that you're wrong and that you've wasted several years of your life pursuing a flight of fancy, a mere delusion.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 03:51 PM   #604
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?

When are you going to demonstrate that a running difference compilation made from a series of 171 images of the coronal region of the Sun can show a surface thousands of kilometers below under the photosphere. Your standards require a lab tested, right here on Earth, controlled experiment that shows that to be true. If not, you're wrong. Oh that's right, your own standards don't apply to your own crazy idea of evidence.

Last edited by GeeMack; 5th July 2009 at 04:20 PM. Reason: Grammar correction.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 04:27 PM   #605
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Baloney. Birkeland built a working solar system in a lab.

[...]
Baloney.

Whatever Birkeland 'built' 'in a lab', it was NOT 'a working solar system'!

After all, Eris was not discovered back then, was it?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 05:58 PM   #606
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What exactly did you expect me to say about it? Birkeland identified the original current source (fission). He identified a discharge process between the surface and the heliosphere and even simulated coronal loops, jets, solar wind, etc. What did you guys do to demonstrate any of your claims in a physical way in controlled experimentation?
Citations from his book and published papers please.

As far as I can see everything that you say Birkeland "identified", Birkeland actually speculated about and produced experimental analogies.

Scientists have demonstrated the actual processes in solar physics in empirical experiments.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 06:12 PM   #607
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
I thought it would be interesting to see your reasoning as to why not a single physics professional or educator on Earth
That statement is simply a false statement on your part, no matter how many times you repeat it. You really are just "winging" your whole ad hom speal, insult by insult, unsupported statement after unsupported statement. You can't figure out the first thing about a RD image because you're clueless when it comes to the process. If you were not clueless you would not have made so many bonehead mistakes on just the basics. Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Sheesh. You're pathetic when it comes to actual "science".

Having not sat down with the whole population of Earth to explain my ideas, it's no surprise that most folks do not understand them, let alone agree with them.

I've not wasted my life in any way. I've spent four years attempting to get you folks to sit down and address these images, and what I've learned in that four years has been invaluable. The whole collective lot of you seems to have not one single specific explanation in terms of cause effect relationships, and specific events in specific frames of these images. None of you has stepped up scientifically to offer an explanation of these images in any detail based on gas model theory. None of you seem to be able to hang in there as it relates to heliosiesmology findings of a "stratification subsurface" sitting in what is supposed to be on open convection zone that keeps iron mixed with hydrogen. Your whole belief system is held together with so many irrational beliefs it's not funny. I've learn a lot in the last four plus years, and it's been worth every minute of these discussions, even if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

I once believed that your collective here might have something of scientific value to offer but what I've learned is exactly the opposite is true. There are a few folks like DD, Tim, some folks from space.com, and a few others that have been scientifically curious and "fair" scientific skeptics. The rest of you engage in underhanded debate tactics that are highly reminiscent of what one might expect from any cult on any topic. Lynch the heretic mentality seems to be your personal specialty for instance. You haven't a clue how to explain any specific detail in the images because you don't even understand the process at a rudimentary level.

I also learned that your so called "experts" seem to specifically unwilling to come out to any forum and explain this image in any detail, not one of them. I've tried to solicit a response on many forums, and it pretty much always goes down exactly as it's going down here. That's probably because it's such a small inbred little community and there aren't many "experts" in the first place, and those folks like you only debase the conversation to the point of absurdity.

As I've said, you are the single least ethical debator in cyberspace. I've never met anyone with less ethics, less real "scientific curiosity" on any forum anywhere, including several religious oriented websites I have posted to. That's really saying something. If you didn't include a personal insult every single post, you wouldn't sound so utterly pathetic.

Do you really thing nobody in cyberspace is going to notice how you, RC, DRD and everyone else here has run from every specific observation in this specific image? Do you think they aren't going to notice how unethical your style is? Do you really think they will fail to miss how cowardly you've been when it comes to focusing on anything specific in any specific frame of the image? How deluded are you anyway?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 06:22 PM   #608
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
That statement is simply a false statement on your part, no matter how many times you repeat it. You really are just "winging" your whole ad hom speal, insult by insult, unsupported statement after unsupported statement. You can't figure out the first thing about a RD image because you're clueless when it comes to the process. If you were not clueless you would not have made so many bonehead mistakes on just the basics. Flying plasma? What flying plasma? Sheesh. You're pathetic when it comes to actual "science".

Having not sat down with the whole population of Earth to explain my ideas, it's no surprise that most folks do not understand them, let alone agree with them.

I've not wasted my life in any way. I've spent four years attempting to get you folks to sit down and address these images, and what I've learned in that four years has been invaluable. The whole collective lot of you seems to have not one single specific explanation in terms of cause effect relationships, and specific events in specific frames of these images. None of you has stepped up scientifically to offer an explanation of these images in any detail based on gas model theory. None of you seem to be able to hang in there as it relates to heliosiesmology findings of a "stratification subsurface" sitting in what is supposed to be on open convection zone that keeps iron mixed with hydrogen. Your whole belief system is held together with so many irrational beliefs it's not funny. I've learn a lot in the last four plus years, and it's been worth every minute of these discussions, even if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

I once believed that your collective here might have something of scientific value to offer but what I've learned is exactly the opposite is true. There are a few folks like DD, Tim, some folks from space.com, and a few others that have been scientifically curious and "fair" scientific skeptics. The rest of you engage in underhanded debate tactics that are highly reminiscent of what one might expect from any cult on any topic. Lynch the heretic mentality seems to be your personal specialty for instance. You haven't a clue how to explain any specific detail in the images because you don't even understand the process at a rudimentary level.

I also learned that your so called "experts" seem to specifically unwilling to come out to any forum and explain this image in any detail, not one of them. I've tried to solicit a response on many forums, and it pretty much always goes down exactly as it's going down here. That's probably because it's such a small inbred little community and there aren't many "experts" in the first place, and those folks like you only debase the conversation to the point of absurdity.

As I've said, you are the single least ethical debator in cyberspace. I've never met anyone with less ethics, less real "scientific curiosity" on any forum anywhere, including several religious oriented websites I have posted to. That's really saying something. If you didn't include a personal insult every single post, you wouldn't sound so utterly pathetic.

Do you really thing nobody in cyberspace is going to notice how you, RC, DRD and everyone else here has run from every specific observation in this specific image? Do you think they aren't going to notice how unethical your style is? Do you really think they will fail to miss how cowardly you've been when it comes to focusing on anything specific in any specific frame of the image? How deluded are you anyway?
This is an Internet forum for skeptics that happens to have some knowledgeable science types as members. If you really want to test your ideas out against the scientific mainstream, why don't you do so?

Astronomers and physicists aren't cloistered away in monasteries. Every university has a faculty page with contact information for professors and researchers. I imagine many private research facilities do the same. Send some emails. If you get brushed off, try someone else. It's a big, interconnected world out there. Some qualified person will eventually be patient enough to listen and explain things to you. You're wasting your time in here.
__________________
"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
D'rok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 06:26 PM   #609
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Ditto on the Electricity generates magnetic fields issue. There's a "cause/effect" relationship here that you have backwards. Current flow causes the magnetic field to form in our atmosphere. Ditto on the sun. You seem to insist magnetic fields do all the work when in nature it is the *CURRENT FLOW* that generates the magnetic field. Why are you putting the cart before the horse?
Why are you ignorant of processes oin plasma?
In solids it is often true that current flow produces magnetic fields, e.g. the current in asolenoid produces their magnetic fields. This is something any first year physics student knows about.

Plasmas are not solids. Their physical propoerties are different. This is something any first year physics student knows about.
They cannot have electric currents (your "*CURRENT FLOW*") that extend over more than a few Debye lengths, i.e. a few metres in the Sun's photosphere (and that is probably generous).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
And Birkeland created charge separation even on a cathode sphere. The key issue here is Birkeland created a working model of these discharge processes. When did you ever see a full sphere full of arcs like this from "magnetic reconnection" theory?
He did. Everyone knows this.
Only an idiot would think that a charge spearation on a metallic sphere has anything to do with charge separation in a plasma.
Are you an idiot Michael Mozina?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Why did Birkeland's sphere generate loops in the atmosphere?
Because the Earth's atmosphere is not the Sun's - it is not a plasma!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
How is current flow in plasma in any way limited to a Debye length?
Once more for thesimple minded:
Current flows need charge speration. Charge separation is limited in plasmas to a few tens of Debye lengths.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You'd have to demonstrate your case and address any of the three other images I provided to support your case. The only "delusion" here is your belief that a very thin plasma like a photosphere will block light on every single wavelength. Even in your own model there would be nothing to prevent us from seeing the arc down to the surface of the photosphere and to whatever depth it actually penetrates the photosphere. Do you figure that happens in the first inch or two?
The RD animation has been explained (you are deluded by your preconceptions into seeing "mountain ranges" below the photosphere in an animaion that records chnages in the corona).
The Doppler image has been explained by Dr. Kosovichev on your web site:
Quote:
The consistent structures in the movie are caused by stationary flows in magnetic structures, sunspots and active regions.
We know this from the simultaneous measurements of solar magnetic field, made by SOHO. These are not solid structures which would not have mass flows that we see.
These images are Doppler shift of the spectral line Ni 6768A.
The Doppler shift measures the velocity of mass motions along the line of sight. The darker areas show the motions towards us, and light areas show flows from us. These are not cliffs or anything like this. The movie frames are the running differences of the Doppler shift. For the illustration purpose, the sunquake signal is enhanced by increasing its amplitude by a factor 4.
What was the third image?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The fact that you and GM rely upon the term "delusion" so often and that you both of you avoid the specific details of this image like the plague only demonstrates to me how pathetic you've become. You've got nothing in terms of scientific explanations to offer, and therefore the personal attack is your only pitiful means of debate.
It is not a personal attack. It is a factual description of the ideas that you have.
We have offered the scientific explanations in this forum.
Many people have offered the scientific explanations in other fora.
The lead scientists (Dr. Neal Hurlburt and Dr. Kosovichev) involved in the acquisition of the images that you are mistaken about have offered the scientific explanations.
You have known the scientific explanations of the images for many years.

But you persist in asking for people to explain it to you yet again. When offered the scientific explanations you just ignore them and ask the same inane questions again.

This persistent ignorance turns your ideas from misinterpretations into delusions. It turns you from a person who is ignorant of physics (and possibly willing to learn about it) into a person who is deluded into thinking that they are right regardless of the actual science. This is sounds like narcissistic personality disorder but I prefer to refer to you as yet another delusional crackpot.

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th July 2009 at 06:28 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 07:17 PM   #610
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Do you really thing nobody in cyberspace is going to notice how you, RC, DRD and everyone else here has run from every specific observation in this specific image? Do you think they aren't going to notice how unethical your style is? Do you really think they will fail to miss how cowardly you've been when it comes to focusing on anything specific in any specific frame of the image? How deluded are you anyway?

Actually I think they're noticing that every one of us here, and many many more, have explained your precious running difference images down to the last pixel (or accept my explanation as valid if they haven't offered one of their own). I think they're noticing, obviously by the responses you've been getting for several years, that you're a liar and you're ignorant. I think they're noticing, again by their responses to your inane claim, that you've got a serious problem with your perception of reality, a serious lack of understanding of physics, a serious misunderstanding of the scientific process, an irrational approach to what you consider evidence, a serious inability to understand or apply math as necessary to support or disprove your crazy claim, and seriously impaired communication skills demonstrated clearly by your lack of ability to get anyone to understand what the hell you're talking about most of the time. That's what I'm sure they notice, on boards you've joined (and sometimes been banned from) in the past, and on this forum right here.

And I've got news for you. Those other people you seem to appreciate that talk all sciency, they aren't giving your crap any more credence than I am. They're telling you you're wrong just like everyone else is. It's the depth of your ignorance that prevents you from seeing it. Nobody, not one single soul on Earth in the field of physics thinks the Sun has a solid iron surface. Not one. And you haven't provided an iota of objective evidence to suggest it does. You lost this before you even started. You're just too wrapped up in your fantasy to know that you're a loser.

But in the interest of fairness, how about you take another shot at coughing up some evidence. (Now that'd be a first!) Where can we find the write-up of that controlled experiment that shows how you can see thousands of kilometers below the Sun's photosphere in a computer processed difference graph of sequential source images gathered with equipment that only images the transition region and corona? You know, that controlled experiment without which even you must admit your claim is completely useless?

BTW, you're a nut, Michael. Love watching you throw those tantrums of yours. Makes you look like a real scientist it does, yesiree! Because you know how real scientists, when asked for evidence, ignore the request and instead write several paragraphs crying like a little girl about being picked on by the mean old skeptics. What a hoot!
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 07:54 PM   #611
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,165
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Well, well, well, up to now no working model for the electric universe has been presented.
  • I have not obtained an answer from MM on where exactly Birkeland calculates the dragging of the ions by the electrons, and I did go through lots of math pages in the book and wrote it down here.
  • I have not obtained an answer from either Sol88 or MM or Zeuzzz on how the water in a comet gets created from solar wind protons and nucleus oxygen ions
  • I have not obtained an answer about how EDM works on an electric comet
  • I have not obtained an answer on what "particle reconnection is
  • I have not obtained an answer on how induction can change the topology of the magnetic field in the following way that is from anti-parallel field to this X-configuration
  • I have not obtained even the smallest acknowledgement from PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents that mainstream does not abhor electric fields and elelctric currents
  • I would love to be explained how Birkeland's fission of uranium in the Sun leads to electricity (whatever electricity is)
  • I would love to know why a failed model like Peratt's is being deified, when all observational evidence is lacking
  • How does the "stars are z-pinches" model work, and what evidence is there and what is driving the currents for these z-pinches (I realise that this is somehow a mini-version of Peratt's galaxy creation mechanism)
  • I would like to know ... well, that is about enough questions

Basically, I have not received squad from the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC apart from things that are already in mainstream, but the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC proponents have not got the foggiest
Point 2

NASA IBEX Spacecraft Detects Neutral Hydrogen Bouncing Off Moon

Quote:
The solar wind, the supersonic stream of charged particles that flows out from the sun, moves out into space in every direction at speeds of about a million mph. The Earth's strong magnetic field shields our planet from the solar wind. The moon, with its relatively weak magnetic field, has no such protection, causing the solar wind to slam onto the moon's sunward side.
Read asteroids, comet and moons without magnetosphere as well!!!

Quote:
From its vantage point in high earth orbit, IBEX sees about half of the moon one quarter of it is dark and faces the nightside (away from the sun), while the other quarter faces the dayside (toward the sun). Solar wind particles impact only the dayside, where most of them are embedded in the lunar surface, while some scatter off in different directions. The scattered ones mostly become neutral atoms in this reflection process by picking up electrons from the lunar surface.
This is only half right, which is typical of a mainstream press release, electrons "stick" to the nightside, ions "slam" into the dayside i.e The night side is negatively charged and the day side positively!!!


maybe you have seen this pic before


Quote:
The combined scattering and neutralization processes now observed at the moon have implications for interactions with objects across the solar system, such as asteroids, Kuiper Belt objects and other moons. The plasma-surface interactions occurring within protostellar nebula, the region of space that forms around planets and stars as well as exoplanets, planets around other stars also can be inferred.
And COMETS Tusenfem, do try and keep up sport!

Oh and I see it's all "mainstream" now we knew that all along

That is my friends is PURE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE!!!!!

As for point 3 see point 2! That is EDM a more energetic form of NASA/ESA's "sputtering"!!

And the BOOYA moment, from one of the comments on the UT page

Quote:
# Jon Hanford Says:
June 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Ditto Astrofiend's and T Larsson OM's comments completely! These are entirely relevant questions in regards to quantitative measurements of these quantitative observations. No conspiracy theory needed here.The entire world wants to know, on an iPod, if possible!
Do a little dance, make a little love, let's get down tonight!!!!



Watches Tusenfems head
__________________
No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing. Jonesdave116.

The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story! Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 07:58 PM   #612
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by D'rok View Post
This is an Internet forum for skeptics that happens to have some knowledgeable science types as members. If you really want to test your ideas out against the scientific mainstream, why don't you do so?
No offense, but this particular topic is not something that most folks have:
A) a lot of interest in to start with.
B) a lot of experience as it relates to satellite images, equipment and the technical limitations of this equipment.
C) a lot of interest in reading enough materials to make an educated and fully informed decision.

This particular image is also heavily processed and therefore it is not a "simple" image to comprehend or to explain to someone with no knowledge of the equipment used, or the technique used to create the image. It can of course *sound* simple enough to a layman, but it takes time to physically explain these images and observations in terms of cause effect relationships, specific physical details, individual observations in individual frames, etc. Most folks just aren't that "into" the topic in the first place. Those that are interested have hopefully followed the conversation, but again that does not mean that they have read the materials suggested by either side, or that they have fully understood the arguments in scientific detail.

Quote:
Astronomers and physicists aren't cloistered away in monasteries.
Well, they live a pretty sheltered life and aren't used to any real criticism, I can tell you that much. Why aren't they here "explaining" the details of this specific RD image? Please don't tell me any details of this image have been explained here in any way. They have not even address or specified any frame or any specific observation. Even some of GM basic statements about the RD imaging process were simply false and yet you can't personally tell the difference, can you? You're even following along and trying to be helpful and make an honest effort to understand the topic. I realize that you're really trying, but I also realize that you don't have a lot of experience with these images, and you aren't likely to take my side immediately if ever. Like I said, it's no offense personally, but to understand this image, it takes time and real effort, and nobody here seems willing to put in either time or effort into any specific detail of the image.

Quote:
Every university has a faculty page with contact information for professors and researchers. I imagine many private research facilities do the same. Send some emails. If you get brushed off, try someone else. It's a big, interconnected world out there. Some qualified person will eventually be patient enough to listen and explain things to you. You're wasting your time in here.
I've actually already done that in the past and I've received several responses as well. Dr. Kosovichev has been a real professional by anyone's standards and has emailed me on multiple occasions with answers to my specific questions. He has even sent me additional Doppler images of similar events. I feel quite honored that he's put in the time to do all that for me.

Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan from the SOHO program also spent a lot time and back and forth emails with me in the early days explaining the RD imaging process and how that process affected the _DIT files in the archives. I know for a fact that LMSAL had three different internal servers looking over my website in the first few months it was online. I've also been out here debating these ideas in cyberspace for about 4 years now. I've even published several papers with a few other scientists in that time. It's not as though I've been cloistered away either.

For me this public debate process has not ever been a waste of time in any way. I've learned a lot over the last few years. I needed to know if these ideas would hold up to public scrutiny. I needed to know if there were additional "explanations" for that RD image that might be "better" than the ones that I came up with. I needed to figure out many aspects of Birkeland's solar model that were not obvious to me at the beginning. These public conversations (well, not necessarily this one specifically) have helped me to do that. It has also taken me awhile to figure out how to even begin to effectively communicate these ideas and I still obviously have a lot to learn. I've had to learn to deal with different types of "skeptics". It is certainly not a waste of time IMO, it is just a pity that folks like GM have to drag the conversation into the sewer all the time.

Since this website afforded me the opportunity to openly discuss these issues with a few folks that I actually do admire (like Tim and DD) in an open and honest manner, I thought it might be worthwhile to find out if they more to offer me in terms of actual science and scientific explanations. Even knowing that they don't have any such answers to offer me is useful information IMO.

It's a pity that these conversations can't stay focused on the science and the images, but that isn't my fault or my choice. I'll be happy to address these images and the details of the images, but a serious scientific discussion of this image cannot begin with "flying stuff? what flying stuff", or we really can't discuss them at all. Some rudimentary understanding of the technical process will be required to sort out the BS like "NO" light sources are involved, and false statements like that. If one sits down and creates a few RD images for themselves, it's possible to refute some of the silly commentary, but most folks have neither the time nor inclination do do such a thing and therefore even knowing who's telling the truth and whole lying through their teeth because nearly impossible to determine.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:00 PM   #613
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
Actually I think they're noticing that every one of us here, and many many more, have explained your precious running difference images down to the last pixel (or accept my explanation as valid if they haven't offered one of their own).
Dude, you aren't even capable of citing *ANY* specific pixel in ANY specific frame of *ANY* explanation you've offered. You're utterly deluded if you think you "explained" ANY specific pixel of this image.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:03 PM   #614
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
...snip...
Yet another silly post from Sol88.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:04 PM   #615
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
You're just too wrapped up in your fantasy to know that you're a loser.
I would only be a "loser" if I "gave up" because of ignorant bozos like you that attack individuals rather than idea and have nothing of science to offer. Fortunately that is never going to happen.

When did you intend to explain *ANY* specific pixel of *ANY* specific frame?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:05 PM   #616
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
...snipped MM's usual ignorance and delusions...
MM: When did you intend to explain *ANY* specific pixel of *ANY* specific frame?
Start with pixel (1,1) on frame 1.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:07 PM   #617
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Hoy......

I think RC and GM have set new lows for the number times you've resorted to ad homs and personal insults. If you two really don't have anything more to offer on these images, why are you wasting your breath on me? You must know by now that your personal attacks are pointless and they only demonstrate to me that you're in pure desperation mode at this point and have nothing of science to offer me. Do you two have anything specific about the image to offer (by frame and location), or shall we just do another round of pointless insults?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:10 PM   #618
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
In solids it is often true that current flow produces magnetic fields, e.g. the current in asolenoid produces their magnetic fields. This is something any first year physics student knows about.
Except you refuse to note the order of things at every turn.

Quote:
Plasmas are not solids.
They are excellent conductors however.

Quote:
Their physical propoerties are different. This is something any first year physics student knows about.
You mean like they conduct current and form filaments in the plasma when there is certain types of current present?

Quote:
They cannot have electric currents (your "*CURRENT FLOW*") that extend over more than a few Debye lengths, i.e. a few metres in the Sun's photosphere (and that is probably generous).
Anyone who's ever looked at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere knows that you're full of it. Discharges can span many miles.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:13 PM   #619
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No offense, but this particular topic is not something that most folks have:
A) a lot of interest in to start with.
B) a lot of experience as it relates to satellite images, equipment and the technical limitations of this equipment.
C) a lot of interest in reading enough materials to make an educated and fully informed decision.

This particular image is also heavily processed and therefore it is not a "simple" image to comprehend or to explain to someone with no knowledge of the equipment used, or the technique used to create the image. It can of course *sound* simple enough to a layman, but it takes time to physically explain these images and observations in terms of cause effect relationships, specific physical details, individual observations in individual frames, etc. Most folks just aren't that "into" the topic in the first place. Those that are interested have hopefully followed the conversation, but again that does not mean that they have read the materials suggested by either side, or that they have fully understood the arguments in scientific detail.



Well, they live a pretty sheltered life and aren't used to any real criticism, I can tell you that much. Why aren't they here "explaining" the details of this specific RD image? Please don't tell me any details of this image have been explained here in any way. They have not even address or specified any frame or any specific observation. Even some of GM basic statements about the RD imaging process were simply false and yet you can't personally tell the difference, can you? You're even following along and trying to be helpful and make an honest effort to understand the topic. I realize that you're really trying, but I also realize that you don't have a lot of experience with these images, and you aren't likely to take my side immediately if ever. Like I said, it's no offense personally, but to understand this image, it takes time and real effort, and nobody here seems willing to put in either time or effort into any specific detail of the image.



I've actually already done that in the past and I've received several responses as well. Dr. Kosovichev has been a real professional by anyone's standards and has emailed me on multiple occasions with answers to my specific questions. He has even sent me additional Doppler images of similar events. I feel quite honored that he's put in the time to do all that for me.

Stein Vidar Hagfors Haugan from the SOHO program also spent a lot time and back and forth emails with me in the early days explaining the RD imaging process and how that process affected the _DIT files in the archives. I know for a fact that LMSAL had three different internal servers looking over my website in the first few months it was online. I've also been out here debating these ideas in cyberspace for about 4 years now. I've even published several papers with a few other scientists in that time. It's not as though I've been cloistered away either.

For me this public debate process has not ever been a waste of time in any way. I've learned a lot over the last few years. I needed to know if these ideas would hold up to public scrutiny. I needed to know if there were additional "explanations" for that RD image that might be "better" than the ones that I came up with. I needed to figure out many aspects of Birkeland's solar model that were not obvious to me at the beginning. These public conversations (well, not necessarily this one specifically) have helped me to do that. It has also taken me awhile to figure out how to even begin to effectively communicate these ideas and I still obviously have a lot to learn. I've had to learn to deal with different types of "skeptics". It is certainly not a waste of time IMO, it is just a pity that folks like GM have to drag the conversation into the sewer all the time.

Since this website afforded me the opportunity to openly discuss these issues with a few folks that I actually do admire (like Tim and DD) in an open and honest manner, I thought it might be worthwhile to find out if they more to offer me in terms of actual science and scientific explanations. Even knowing that they don't have any such answers to offer me is useful information IMO.

It's a pity that these conversations can't stay focused on the science and the images, but that isn't my fault or my choice. I'll be happy to address these images and the details of the images, but a serious scientific discussion of this image cannot begin with "flying stuff? what flying stuff", or we really can't discuss them at all. Some rudimentary understanding of the technical process will be required to sort out the BS like "NO" light sources are involved, and false statements like that. If one sits down and creates a few RD images for themselves, it's possible to refute some of the silly commentary, but most folks have neither the time nor inclination do do such a thing and therefore even knowing who's telling the truth and whole lying through their teeth because nearly impossible to determine.
So if you have corresponded with the pros, what did they say about your analysis of the images? Did they agree that the images show rigid, persistent features? If not, why did you not accept their explanations?

From an observer's perspective here, I see Tim and DD politely saying you're full of it and I see RC and GM impolitely saying you're full of it. But all of them have taken the time and effort to try and explain things. As a non-scientist, my only tool for determining who is correct on these issues is critical-thinking. Cheap shots aside, they have made cogent arguments backed by relevant authorities. (Appeal to authority is a valid informal logic technique). You haven't. This makes them persuasive, and makes you unpersuasive.
__________________
"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
D'rok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:24 PM   #620
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Except you refuse to note the order of things at every turn.
What is the order of things and why does it turn?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
They are excellent conductors however.
That is sort of right - they have plenty of free electrons that can only travel short distances, e.g. ~metres in the photosphere.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
You mean like they conduct current and form filaments in the plasma when there is certain types of current present?
No. Plasmas do not conduct current. They are not wires. They are electrically conductive (there is a difference) because they have a lot of free electrons.
Plasmas can form filaments in magnetic fields (e.g. galactic jets).

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Anyone who's ever looked at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere knows that you're full of it. Discharges can span many miles.
Anyone who's ever looked at a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere knows that you're full of it.
Only an idiot would think that the Earth's atmosphere is a plasma. Thank you for confirming that you are an idiot.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:29 PM   #621
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Hoy......

I think RC and GM have set new lows for the number times you've resorted to ad homs and personal insults. If you two really don't have anything more to offer on these images, why are you wasting your breath on me? You must know by now that your personal attacks are pointless and they only demonstrate to me that you're in pure desperation mode at this point and have nothing of science to offer me. Do you two have anything specific about the image to offer (by frame and location), or shall we just do another round of pointless insults?
Yes please!
Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of physics and your inability to learn or comprehend basic physics to all the readers of this forum!
Continue to lie about the fact that we have explained every frame and location in the RD animation.

But if you want:
Pixel (1,1) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,1) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,2) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,2) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,3) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,3) on the 2 original images.
etc.

Now you explain every frame and location in the RD animation.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:33 PM   #622
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Dude, you aren't even capable of citing *ANY* specific pixel in ANY specific frame of *ANY* explanation you've offered. You're utterly deluded if you think you "explained" ANY specific pixel of this image.

And more crying like a baby. Wahhh.

Name a pixel, any pixel. Do you like Row 114, Column 78? Maybe Row 92, Column 312? I'll be happy to explain it, one more time. But I'll explain it right after you point us to the controlled experiment, one we can replicate, that lets us see thousands of kilometers below the photosphere using difference graphs made from images of 171 wavelength emissions obtained from the coronal region. Of course ideally this would be an experiment we can do right here on Earth, as you insist that is the only valid way to obtain evidence. And it must be objective, meaning other people must be able to reach the same conclusion as you. Or barring that, admit that no such experiment or evidence exists.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:53 PM   #623
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
And more crying like a baby. Wahhh.
You really are the single strangest character I've met in cyberspace. It doesn't matter how many times you're shown to be wrong, you just keep bouncing back for more.

Quote:
Name a pixel, any pixel. Do you like Row 114, Column 78?
Let's try a whole observation at once, like the peeling effect we observe along the right maybe? Better yet, how about you "explain" the persistent angular features for us? Let me guess? What angular persistent features?

Quote:
I'll be happy to explain it, one more time. But I'll explain it right after you point us to the controlled experiment, one we can replicate, that lets us see thousands of kilometers below the photosphere using difference graphs made from images of 171 wavelength emissions obtained from the coronal region.
How about showing me any physical test demonstrating how a mostly hydrogen/helium atmosphere is going to block *ANY* iron ion wavelength of light over any distance? Hell, I can observe lightening bolts on Earth many miles away and it's atmosphere is many times thinker than the photosphere.

Quote:
Of course ideally this would be an experiment we can do right here on Earth, as you insist that is the only valid way to obtain evidence.
Fine. Show me a how a discharge process is going be swallowed up by some light hydrogen and helium atoms. Go right ahead.,


Quote:
And it must be objective, meaning other people must be able to reach the same conclusion as you. Or barring that, admit that no such experiment or evidence exists.
An obvious process we can all observe here on Earth is a discharge in our own atmosphere. We can see it from miles away because it emits visible light in spite of the atmosphere between us and the discharge. The atmosphere of the sun is even lighter than our own atmosphere, so what makes you think it will block all wavelengths of light in mere meters?

Give me any objective reason to believe that a mostly hydrogen and helium mixture is going to block all light of every wavelength instantly?

The only "objective" test I've seen done was done by a guy from 100 years ago named Birkeland. He created discharges visible in the atmosphere of his spheres without any trouble at all. He discovered they would congregate at the "bumps' of the sphere by the way. What other kind of "test" did you have in mind?

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 5th July 2009 at 09:16 PM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:55 PM   #624
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yes please!
Continue to demonstrate your ignorance of physics and your inability to learn or comprehend basic physics to all the readers of this forum!
Continue to lie about the fact that we have explained every frame and location in the RD animation.

But if you want:
Pixel (1,1) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,1) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,2) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,2) on the 2 original images.
Pixel (1,3) on frame 1 = the change between pixel (1,3) on the 2 original images.
etc.

Now you explain every frame and location in the RD animation.
If that is really the best job you can do as it relates to the analysis of this image, I'm sorry, but I'd fire you. I'm not interested in the mechanical details of the imaging process, I'm interested in the solar processes that generate these changes. Can you describe the solar processes responsible for specific events, like those angular patterns, yes or no?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:55 PM   #625
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Hoy......

I think RC and GM have set new lows for the number times you've resorted to ad homs and personal insults. If you two really don't have anything more to offer on these images, why are you wasting your breath on me? You must know by now that your personal attacks are pointless and they only demonstrate to me that you're in pure desperation mode at this point and have nothing of science to offer me. Do you two have anything specific about the image to offer (by frame and location), or shall we just do another round of pointless insults?
Actually you are the one who is in pure desperation mode.

You cannot take the fact that you unable to comprehend the simple physics behind the TRACE detector use of the 171A pass band filter. That simple physics means that that the TRACE 171A images are all of activity in the transition zone or higher (i.e. thousands of kilometers above the photosphere).

Here it is again:
The 171A pass band was selected so that astronomers would detect activity in the transition zone and corona without being overwhelmed by the radiation from the photosphere. They could (and do with their other filters) look at at the Sun in other bands - including visible light. The 171A pass band detects matter that has an temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K. This means that matter emitting light in a near balck body spectrum (like the photosphere) needs to have an effective temperature between 160,000 K and 2,000,000 K in order to be detected.

Look at the photosphere section of the Wikipedia Sun article. There is a diagram to the right of the measured spectral irradiance (power/area) versus wavelength of the photosphere showing that it has an effective temperature of ~6000 K.

MM:
  • Where is 171A on this diagram and what is the value of spectral irradiance at that wavelength?
  • Make a guess at just how much radiation the TRACE 171A pass band filter is going to detect from the photosphere at that spectral irradiance?
  • I happen to know that there is at least one other spectral irradiance diagram (at different scales) on the web that shows a tiny amount of radiation in the 171A pass band from the photosphere. Can you find it?
  • Can you find a paper that actually puts a number to the amount of 171A radiation from the photosphere to support your assertion that it can be detected?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 08:59 PM   #626
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If that is really the best job you can do as it relates to the analysis of this image, I'm sorry, but I'd fire you. I'm not interested in the mechanical details of the imaging process, I'm interested in the solar processes that generate these changes. Can you describe the solar processes responsible for specific events, like those angular patterns, yes or no?
Yes we can and we have many times - flares and CME (RD annimation), magnetic fields for the Doppler, etc.

Can you tell us the solar processes responsible for allowing material heated to < 6000 K (photosphere) or < 2000 K (your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface) show up in a detector designed to detect material heated to > 160,000 K?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:05 PM   #627
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
What is the order of things
Electrical discharges in the atmosphere (of Earth) generate magnetic fields in the Earth's amosphere.

Quote:
and why does it turn?
Beats me, but somewhere between our atmosphere and the solar atmosphere you have electricity and magnetism standing on their head. Magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect" here on Earth, but electricity flows between things in our atmosphere and generates plasma temperatures that rival those in the solar atmosphere.

Quote:
That is sort of right - they have plenty of free electrons that can only travel short distances, e.g. ~metres in the photosphere.
Currents in plasma can flow for miles as in any ordinary lightning bolt. There is no limit to the length of the discharge and they have been seen to flow between the sun and the earth as giant "magnetic ropes" when Alfven described as "Bennett Pinch"es in plasma. I'm afraid this idea of yours in particular is fatally flawed. Plasma filaments can form over great distances.

Quote:
No. Plasmas do not conduct current. They are not wires. They are electrically conductive (there is a difference) because they have a lot of free electrons.
The plasma filaments in an ordinary plasma ball are in fact just like "wires" that conduct electrical current between the glass sphere and the inner sphere. They do form "wires" that conduct electrical energy. If you knew anything about plasma it should be that plasma can form current carrying filaments that can travel great distances.

Quote:
Plasmas can form filaments in magnetic fields (e.g. galactic jets).
Where does that happen here in the Earth's atmosphere? Why would you *ASSUME* that magnetism is somehow the motive force rather than electron flow?

Quote:
Only an idiot would think that the Earth's atmosphere is a plasma. Thank you for confirming that you are an idiot.
No plasma is 100% ionized and the Earth's atmosphere does contain plasma inside that discharge, and in the aurora and inside clouds, etc. Only an idiot resorts to idiotic name calling in every single post. You two need to grow up.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:15 PM   #628
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yes we can and we have many times - flares
Oh give me a break RC, you won't even explain the first cause/effect relationship and explain what heats a single "coronal loop". That isn't an "explanation", that an "observation" at best case. At least you aren't going "what flying stuff", but it's only a baby step forward at best.

Quote:
and CME (RD annimation),
That CME is the direct result of an electrical discharge process. As long as you aren't going to acknowledge that part, what else would you attribute it to exactly? Keep in mind that whatever you come with has to spew plasma from the whole surface all day every day.

Quote:
magnetic fields for the Doppler, etc.
Evidently you actually read my web page to get that response from Kosovichev (I put it there), but you failed to address my posted rebuttal to that "explanation" in any way. Why is that?

Quote:
Can you tell us the solar processes responsible for allowing material heated to < 6000 K (photosphere)
I'm going to go with Birkeland's "surface to the heliosphere" discharge process on that one.

Quote:
or < 2000 K (your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface) show up in a detector designed to detect material heated to > 160,000 K?
The iron in the iron surface is only going to show up when it gets peeled from the surface and ionized in a discharge event. Sometimes that can span many kilometers. Sometimes it doesn't span more than a couple of kilometers and that would show up as a single "dot" in an images of such low resolution. Until you start to acknowledge some of my actual beliefs and statements, it's tough to have a normal conversation with you. I know that you're capable of doing better than GM, but you'll have to at least *TRY* to understand my position rather than to build strawmen from my statements.

I'm not claiming that surface iron is showing up in these images. I'm saying pieces of the surface, including iron are being peeled from the surface in these discharge events. That iron flows along the coronal loops, large and small. Not all loops are large enough to span several pixels in this image. Many small individual loops may exist and ionize iron in any given pixel.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:24 PM   #629
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Electrical discharges in the atmosphere (of Earth) generate magnetic fields in the Earth's amosphere.
Yes they do. So what has this to do the Sun's astmosphere?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Beats me, but somewhere between our atmosphere and the solar atmosphere you have electricity and magnetism standing on their head. Magnetic lines don't "disconnect" or "reconnect" here on Earth, but electricity flows between things in our atmosphere and generates plasma temperatures that rival those in the solar atmosphere.
That is because plasma is not air.


Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Currents in plasma can flow for miles as in any ordinary lightning bolt. There is no limit to the length of the discharge and they have been seen to flow between the sun and the earth as giant "magnetic ropes" when Alfven described as "Bennett Pinch"es in plasma. I'm afraid this idea of yours in particular is fatally flawed. Plasma filaments can form over great distances.
Magenetic ropes are .... magnetic ropes.
Plasma dfilaments can form over great distance (1000's of light years). They are not electic currents. They are filaments of plasma formed by magnetic fields.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The plasma filaments in an ordinary plasma ball are in fact just like "wires" that conduct electrical current between the glass sphere and the inner sphere. They do form "wires" that conduct electrical energy. If you knew anything about plasma it should be that plasma can form current carrying filaments that can travel great distances.
First the Sun is the Earth and now it is a toy plasma globe? Make up your mind MM !
Plasma globes have filaments and conduction between the ball and their glass. How many 1000 kilometer plasma globes heated to thousnads of K have you seen?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Where does that happen here in the Earth's atmosphere? Why would you *ASSUME* that magnetism is somehow the motive force rather than electron flow?
No assuption - the physisc of plamas states this.

There you go again with your idiotic "Earth's atmosphere". The Sun's atmosphere is not the Earth's atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
No plasma is 100% ionized and the Earth's atmosphere does contain plasma inside that discharge, and in the aurora and inside clouds, etc. Only an idiot resorts to idiotic name calling in every single post. You two need to grow up.
When you stop demonstrating that you are ignorant of physics and delusional, I will stop labeling you as ignorant of physics and delusional.

When you stop being idiotic enough to think that features of the Earth's atmosphere have to be replicated in the Sun's atmosphere without any evidence, I will not have to label you as an idiot.

All you have to do is learn and comprehend some basic physics.
All you have to do is stop being obsessed with trying to apply inappropriate physics to the Sun and apply the actual plasma physics.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:31 PM   #630
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
...snip..
The iron in the iron surface is only going to show up when it gets peeled from the surface and ionized in a discharge event. Sometimes that can span many kilometers. Sometimes it doesn't span more than a couple of kilometers and that would show up as a single "dot" in an images of such low resolution. Until you start to acknowledge some of my actual beliefs and statements, it's tough to have a normal conversation with you. I know that you're capable of doing better than GM, but you'll have to at least *TRY* to understand my position rather than to build strawmen from my statements.

I'm not claiming that surface iron is showing up in these images. I'm saying pieces of the surface, including iron are being peeled from the surface in these discharge events. That iron flows along the coronal loops, large and small. Not all loops are large enough to span several pixels in this image. Many small individual loops may exist and ionize iron in any given pixel.
So your web site (and many of your posts) lie whan you claiim "mountain ranges" in the RD animations?

You are still deluded in thinking that the RD animation contains any information about your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface.

ETA:
This posting imples that you are giving up on your claim that the solid iron surface can be seen in 171A light. Instead it is just "pieces of the surface" as they get ionized in the corona that are being detected.
Is that right?

Last edited by Reality Check; 5th July 2009 at 09:40 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:31 PM   #631
Zeuzzz
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
Got any rough future predictions mike for your iron sun theory? Would be interested.
Zeuzzz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:33 PM   #632
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by D'rok View Post
So if you have corresponded with the pros, what did they say about your analysis of the images?
Well, the gentleman I mentioned from SOHO seemed to believe that the loops must be "backlit" by some process lower in the atmosphere and seemed to reject the notion they were heated internally. That seemed to be a show stopper from my perspective.

Quote:
Did they agree that the images show rigid, persistent features? If not, why did you not accept their explanations?
Kosovichev was willing to accept some sort of persistence and rigidity as it relates to the Doppler image. We did not discuss the RD image per se. His basic response and explanation is posted on my website, along with my rebuttal. Essentially he believed that magnetic fields were creating the persistent features, but he never really addressed the three dimensional aspects very well IMO. To his credit however he was the only one to really discuss these features openly, and he spent a great deal of valuable time answering many of my questions about his images and his work in general. I like him a great deal even if we did not agree on the cause of the rigid features. I would say that it is fair to say that he acknowledged their existence and simply explained them differently.

Quote:
From an observer's perspective here, I see Tim and DD politely saying you're full of it
Actually, Tim seems to be quiet at the moment, and he has not put any effort that I am aware of at actually explaining the image. I think that is a pity IMO since these images are what led me to believe as I do, and if they intend to change my mind, they will have to deal with the images in some detail.

I do however have a great deal of respect for Tim because when Tim says your *IDEAS* are full of it, he explains why in scientific detail. He doesn't beat around the bush or worry about personal issues or personal attacks. He focuses on science and only on the science and that is what a scientist should do. DD is the same way. So are most folk actually. GM and RC are in a class by themselves. While DRD is more violent (she's slit my public throat at least twice now), her/his actions are far more logical and rational in most instances.

Quote:
and I see RC and GM impolitely saying you're full of it.
They however don't focus on the scientific reasons for their beliefs. Instead they simply resort to a constant barrage of personal insults, none of which are focused on IDEAS, but rather on the INDIVIDUAL. Tim and DD never stoop to that sort of pitiful behavior.

Quote:
But all of them have taken the time and effort to try and explain things.
Tim and DD have been pretty quiet on this image as far as I know. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken. Tim and I are not as far apart as you seem to think in many respects, but I have no idea what he things about this specific image. That is also true of DD. Even if we don't agree on anything, I do enjoy discussing the ideas with them because I know that they will focus on IDEAS, not people. That's always a more productive conversation.

GM hasn't "explained" anything in spite of his outrageous statements to the contrary. He's cited no cause/effect relationships, no physical process of the sun responsible for anything in the image, and he's made several false statements which I know for a fact are incorrect and blow his credibility to hell. He's never explained any item of any frame of any parts of these images other than to *INCORRECTLY* attempt to explain the mechanics of RD imagery.

Quote:
As a non-scientist, my only tool for determining who is correct on these issues is critical-thinking. Cheap shots aside, they have made cogent arguments backed by relevant authorities.
Their *EXPLANATIONS* should leave no doubt as to their authority. Without such explanations, their authority remains in question. Until I hear their explanations for angular persistent features I really have no idea if they even disagree with many parts of my basic beliefs. I know for a fact that they would not be so ignorant as to claim "what flying stuff". I would however need a real 'explanation' to work with before I could make any decisions and their title is meaningless to me if they cannot explain the images.

Quote:
(Appeal to authority is a valid informal logic technique). You haven't. This makes them persuasive, and makes you unpersuasive.
Well, that's certainly the intent, but it's also a fallacy in debate for good reason. I could be right even without "authority". Likewise they could be wrong even with it. Unless you have both sets of "explanations", you could not know if one was right or one was wrong based on their title or their level of authority. If you've ever had a boss, you know that sometimes they are wrong even with that "authority".
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:37 PM   #633
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz View Post
Got any rough future predictions mike for your iron sun theory? Would be interested.
So would everyone here. But we will have to wait until MM learns some physics.

Just for my interest:
You seem to have a lot of physics knowledge. Do you think that the TRACE detector using a 171A pass band filter can detect any radiation from the photosphere or below?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:41 PM   #634
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,165
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yet another silly post from Sol88.

Silly?

@ RC ETA: where is the ice/volatiles on a comets surface? Where is the OH coming from?

EU said from the solar wind interaction with the comets nucleus, you said no, NASA IBEX says yes, go figure????

Yup, it's official the EU paradigm is being co adopted by the "mainstream" on the sly, brilliant science that!

So far EC has explained most of mainstream surprises wrt comets more than adequately! even a few PREDICTIONS for good scientific measure, which btw means squat to the establishment because their snowball(beit dirty/muddy/flufy or icey) IS correct!

No "mainstreamers" here like to comment on it?
__________________
No rock. Any charge separation is limited. The electric field is pointing in the wrong direction. Currents are doing nothing. Jonesdave116.

The 'electric comet' is physically IMPOSSIBLE to model using mainstream science! PERIOD! True story! End of story! Indagator
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:41 PM   #635
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
So your web site (and many of your posts) lie whan you claiim "mountain ranges" in the RD animations?

You are still deluded in thinking that the RD animation contains any information about your hypothetical, thermodynamically impossible, solid iron surface.
Did you actually listen to my last explanation? I'm not suggesting that the surface itself emits this light, but that the surface contours show up in these images due to their different discharge rates and processes. Did you hear that part or are you still confused into believing that I think the surface itself emits this light?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 09:58 PM   #636
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Here is the TRACE website. This is what TRACE can see @ 17.1nm.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodoverview.html

As you can see it can also see coronal loops. They must be hot enough. It can also see the foot prints of the loop. The loops BEGIN under the photosphere.

The reason for the loops shape is the right hand rule.

There is no other reason for their existence other than to equalize charge between 2 points on a surface.

If you are seeing the loop footprint you are see under the photosphere.

If you use the TOPS data base you will that find in a plasma the density of the photosphere there is a non extinction point at about UV.
That means UV passes through.

If you use a model that incorporates thermionic emission then that solves 99% of all the problems with the solar wind, heavy ion acceleration etc.

Last edited by brantc; 5th July 2009 at 10:00 PM.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 10:02 PM   #637
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Yes they do. So what has this to do the Sun's astmosphere?
It works that way there too, as well as on every other planetary body in the solar system.

Quote:
That is because plasma is not air.
No plasma is composed of 100% ionized particles. Most plasmas are "dusty" and even the atmosphere of Earth can and does at times act as a "dusty plasma" It contains ionized particles too, just not as many of them as the photosphere.

Quote:
Magenetic ropes are .... magnetic ropes.
Hannes Alfven on the topic of magnetic ropes from his book Cosmic Plasma:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

In other words, it's a "current carrying filament undergoing a "Bennett pinch".

Quote:
Plasma dfilaments can form over great distance (1000's of light years). They are not electic currents.
Yes, it's the currents that form them in the first place which is why we find helix shaped magnetic fields in them, otherwise known as "Birkeland currents".

Quote:
They are filaments of plasma formed by magnetic fields.
The filaments are "pinched" by the magnetic fields that are "caused" by the current flow through the filament. Turn off the electricity and the party is over.

Quote:
First the Sun is the Earth and now it is a toy plasma globe? Make up your mind MM !
I love how you guys ignore the obvious comparisons. A plasma globe demonstrates that filamentary threads are a direct result of "current flow" inside the plasma. It's not the "magnetic lines" that power the ball, it is "electrical current" that powers the ball.

Quote:
Plasma globes have filaments and conduction between the ball and their glass. How many 1000 kilometer plasma globes heated to thousnads of K have you seen?
I've seen evidence of magnetic ropes connecting the sun to the Earth. What exactly should I be looking for here if not nature for answers?

Quote:
No assuption - the physisc of plamas states this.
Baloney. Magnetic fields are not the only things to make plasma move. You've chosen one part of a two part process. And *EM* field is capable of moving plasma in a highly efficient manner and electrical current is what causes the filaments to form in plasma. While the magnetic field acts to constrict the flow into a small thread, the current flow drives the parade. Turn off the switch and the magnetic field dissipates almost instantly.

Quote:
There you go again with your idiotic "Earth's atmosphere". The Sun's atmosphere is not the Earth's atmosphere.
They are not as different as you think. They both radiate as substantially less than the 160,000 degrees necessary to emit 171A light or gamma rays or x-rays, yet both atmospheres emit that light.

Quote:
When you stop demonstrating that you are ignorant of physics and delusional, I will stop labeling you as ignorant of physics and delusional.
When you stop wallowing in the gutter and show off some knowledge of physics let me know. So far you're totally missing some key points as it relates to what you claim to know something about. That "solar wind" isn't just composed of neutral atoms, it's composed of fast moving charged particles, in other words, "current flow". We're sitting in the middle of a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere and you seem to be utterly oblivious to this fact.

Quote:
When you stop being idiotic enough to think that features of the Earth's atmosphere have to be replicated in the Sun's atmosphere without any evidence, I will not have to label you as an idiot.
Rhessi has already provided us with such evidence. It sees gamma rays from the Earth's atmosphere which have been traced to discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. It also sees gamma rays from the bases of coronal loops.

Quote:
All you have to do is learn and comprehend some basic physics.
All you need to do is learn some new debate tactics. Your heavy reliance upon personal insults is making you look bad and pitifully desperate.

Quote:
All you have to do is stop being obsessed with trying to apply inappropriate physics to the Sun and apply the actual plasma physics.
The "actual plasma physics" I'm talking about was all lab tested over 100 years ago. You aren't talking about "actual" plasma physics, you're talking about make believe plasma physics that only works in a computer simulation, not in the real world.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 10:28 PM   #638
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Did you actually listen to my last explanation? I'm not suggesting that the surface itself emits this light, but that the surface contours show up in these images due to their different discharge rates and processes. Did you hear that part or are you still confused into believing that I think the surface itself emits this light?
Then I was right - the "mountain range" on the "surface" comment on your we site is a lie.

What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 10:35 PM   #639
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Vermonter View Post
Alright, enough of this. You keep blabbering on about real experiments in controlled environments like it's the best since since sliced bread. We get the point. It's not a valid complaint.
If you got the point, you would realize it's a valid complaint. Since you don't see it as a valid complaint, I don't think you really do get the point. Empirical physics is the best thing since sliced bread. It allows us to determine actual cause/effect relationships in real world circumstances. It also allows us to "test" ideas in real life with real control mechanisms.

Quote:
Have you even performed an observation outside of the lab?
Ya, it's nearly a full moon tonight.

Quote:
You keep repeating yourself louder and louder like it'll mean something. Well, it doesn't.

Papers pass the peer review process because they are well-written and well thought-out, not because the "industry" (which doesn't make sense because you don't make a lot of money doing this...) likes patting itself on the back.
From a skeptics point of view, it sure looks that way. There seems to be a rush to come up with new and improved versions of "dark" stuff, and inflation variations galore. None of you seem to be the least be concerned that none of these things show up in a lab.

Quote:
We understand what experiments are. We've done them in labs. I did them frequently as an undergrad, and I'm sure the others who have taken any college classes at all have done it too. So kindly knock it off. We know how to do experiments. You must have a very hard time accepting that.
Well, when I see you folks look down at Birkeland's work, or Alfven's cosmology theories or Bruce's solar discharge theories I start to wonder if you've spent too much time away from the lab. You seem to have very little appreciation for the amount of skepticism there is for the things that hold your beliefs together, and you seem to show little interest in demonstrating any part of your theories in real life experiments. It's all paper and math and computer modeling with no regard for how nature actually functions. We point Rhessi at the Earth and we observe gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the same exact piece of gear at the sun, observe gamma rays in it's atmosphere and you guys exclaim "magnetic reconnection did it". Come on. Your whole industry suffers from an acute case of "OMG we forget to test our theories in a lab".

Birkeland had no trouble creating high energy discharges in the atmosphere of his terella. He "predicted" their existence based on what he learned in the lab in fact in the "tried and true", "better than sliced bread" approach to "empirical physics". That's what real science is all about.

Now you're welcome to believe in any number of dark and evil entities and any number of dead inflation deities, but they have never and will never have any effect on any experiment on Earth. In all the time LIGO has been in operation, not one bit of "dark matter" has shown up, not once. Dark energy seems to be physically shy around objects with mass, and inflation is dead and can never be physically "tested" in any empirical sense. Your beliefs are more akin to a religious belief system than real "science". Nothing like "dark energy" shows up in the particle physics, but lots of "electrons" show up in the lab.

I really wish you did "get it", but since you think it's "ok" to believe in dark energy, dark matter and inflation theories of all kinds *WITHOUT* even the hope of ever creating experiments to verify your claims make me seriously doubt that you actually do get it. I wouldn't mind so much that you believed in these things if you weren't attempting to exclude other theories from the classroom and from publication in mainstream publications. I see lots of material from Scott, Peratt and others published in EEIE publications, but never in the astrophysical journal or anything "mainstream". Why is that?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th July 2009, 10:42 PM   #640
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Then I was right - the "mountain range" on the "surface" comment on your we site is a lie.
You didn't hear me or understand me or you would realize it's not a "lie". The contours we observe are a direct result of the surface contours and we do in fact see the outlines of mountains in these images.

Quote:
What discharge rates and processes come from your hypothetical thermodynamically impossible solid iron surface to show up as records of change in the RD animation in the corona.
How is Birkeland''s terella "thermodynamically impossible"? You keep stating the most irrational things. His "discharge loops" and cathode rays didn't instantly melt his sphere did they?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:49 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.