Electric universe theories here. - Page 12

GeeMack · 1st July 2009, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

That is false. He agrees with me that we can see this "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data and in the RD images. As I said, we all (three, not two) agreed upon the term "rigid". We all agree that we can observe a "rigid" surface in those images.

So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said.

And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site? You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail, yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail? Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done. Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all.

tusenfem · 1st July 2009, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

See lightning bolts and "electrical discharges through plasma" for further details. How exactly from this great distance did you decide that this "reconnection" process was between "magnetic lines" rather than between moving particles in plasma, or current streams? What is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that cannot be explained in ordinary current sheet acceleration experiments with electricity?

And where exactly should I see that?
We make observations, MM, looking at flares at the limb of the Sun, now we even get 3D images with STEREO of the stuff happening on the Sun. Other peeps that you ALSO look at observations, whether you believe it or not.
Naturally, there are currents associated with reconnection, nobody ever stated otherwise, but you keep on ignoring the one fact that does not fit in your idea and that is that the topology of the magnetic field changes. And these changes cannot be created by extra currents or by induction or whatever, there has to be a null in the magnetic field at the X-point/line.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The change in the field may create induction, but the change in topology is related to the particle movement not the magnetic field.

But the magnetic field is also there if there are no particles, the particles themselves do not create the magnetic field that they are flowing along. The ions and the electrons decouple from the magnetic field in nested regions around the X-point/line.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's called a "short circuit" in plasma. Big deal. It's not anything you can't create here on Earth with *ELECTRICITY*.

It is not a short circuit, whatever gives you that idea? You just look at currents and forget about the magnetic field. The magnetic field is an important part of magnetic reconnection.

But this "discussion" will just go round and round until you give a complete description of what you think reconnection should be and explain the topological changes in the magnetotail of the Earth. I am looking forward to a consize model.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

How are you going to get a change in the magnetotail without a change in "current flow"? You must realize that the particles flowing into the Earth's magnosphere are a form of "current flow", right? They are whizzing by at a million miles per hour you know.

No, I don't know that they are "whizzing away at million miles per hour" because that HIGHLY depends on the situation you are looking at.
Also, I have no idea what kind of current flow you are talking about as there are various currents in the tail, some of which will change (e.g. the substrom current wedge will be created) others will basically remain the same (the cross tail current), so depending on more info I cannot give you any answer on this handwaving argument.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Your term "magnetic reconnection" is purely "made up". You could have slapped any EM term to the process, including "particle reconnection" (since they are doing the actual acceleration part) or "circuit reconnection" because the totals circuit energy determines what occurs at the point of "reconnection". Calling it "magnetic reconnection" however is like calling a short circuit between two copper wires a "magnetic reconnection" between the wires. Yes, the magnetic field topologies might change, but that change is directly related to the flow of electrons through the wire. In this case the conductor is simply made of plasma and it can move around and change it's physical topology. Big deal. The *CURRENT FLOW* will determine both the rate of reconnection and the total amount of reconnection. You just created that term to intentionally muddy the waters and to confuse the public. If there is something physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", what is it?

Well "particle reconnection" makes even less sense because the particle are not connected to eachother. The term magnetic reconnection exactly describes what is happening and what is observed and what is experimented with and what is numerically modeled.

The short circuit between two copper wires has NOTHING to do with reconnection, for one, because the magnetic fields acting in that process are negligible. In the process of magnetic reconnection the magnetic field is the most important part because the particles are magnetized.

What is physically unique is that the topology of the magnetic field is changed that can only happen with mainstream reconnection and not by induction or currents. Then, from the X-point/line the plasma is accelerated because of the tension of the magnetic field lines, and the acceleration of the plasma is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field, exactly as one expects at an X site.

tusenfem · 1st July 2009, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and *COMPLETE* continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all?

Ohhhh playing word games again, MM. Just because you see only half of a loop, we should not call it loop. I think that any person looking at a picture of a coronal loop would call it a loop even if it is only half-a-one. This is just childish.

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.

Another weird example is hole-conduction in semi conductors, where the hole has both a mass and a charge, whereas there is actually nothing there. Confusing, yes, but sometimes you have to go more into the stuff to understand it. The same can be said for many a research direction and not necessarily only in physics.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Literally millions of them.

Well, you have looked at half-loops ...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Then they should be visible at the surface and also somewhat below the surface of the photosphere, particularly if they are heated at the bases of the loops by shear forces. Why would they only become visible "high up" in the atmosphere?

Because the loops are denser than their surroundings, because they are hot and emit radiation, because because because. Don't insult yourself by asking such questions MM. Only when the contrast is big enough can something be seen, take a picture of a bright white wall and someone standing in the shadow of a tree that is cast on the wall. If you don't use your flash you will not be able to see the face. Too little contrast.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them *AT* the photosphere?

see above

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Birkeland called them by their proper name - discharges. So did Bruce.

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Yes, but the x-rays are not visible at the base of the 171A images.

Well, maybe your are looking at the wrong wavelength band? Just use ADS and find X-ray brightening of coronal loop foot points. Here is a start for you. Not everything revolves around one pathetic wavelength.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg

Notice the layered effect? What's that from?

It's layered because two images have been put on top of eachother.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You're trying to tell me that a "shearing effect" in plasma that is like 1/15th the density of air at sea level is going to cause plasma to reach a million degrees? Come on. What's the more likely "cause", shearing or "discharge"? That Birkeland current flying off the sun in the image I posted for David sure has all the "twists" one expects to find in a "Birkeland current".

The fact that YOU cannot imagine it happening does not mean that it does not happen. Apparently, you are not well versed in plasma physics. Just read up on all the papers I linked to, you might learn something.

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That "twisting" helix shape in plasma is called a "Birkeland Current".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...netic_rope.png

It is often referred to as a "magnetic rope" as well, a term that Alfven explicitly explained as a "current carrying" z-pinch filament or Bennett pinch.

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What's with nature and all it's discharges? Discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees. "Shear" processes in wind never do that.

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What the hell is ohmic heating in loops unless you have "current flow" heating the loops?

What part of my message did you not read MM? I clearly stated that in coronal loops currents are flowing. I claimed it at the top of the messages to which this was your reply and I claimed it several times hence. Bit short of memory are we, when we are excited about not understanding plasma physics.?

The currents in the coronal loops, driven e.g. by the shear motion of the foot points (and that means that both foot pionts do not move in the same way to clear that up for you) can have Ohmic disspation. You might remember that from your days at highschool P = I² R.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Look at any electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. That's what I'm talking about. Nature has created a perfectly "natural" way to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely by running electrons through plasma. What exactly do you mean is specifically *PHYSICALLY* unique and different from a standard discharge when you say "magnetic reconnection"? When did magnetic reconnection ever "naturally" occur on Earth or Mars or Saturn or any of the places where nature has been shown to generate huge discharges?

What do you think Ohmic disspation means?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Compared to the plasma in those loops, it's nothing. The plasma in the loops is OOMS hotter than the plasma doing the "shearing" you describe. It's one thing to expect a 10K shearing effect, it's quite another to expect shearing to cause million degree coronal loops.

As you obviously have not understood the shearing motion and the Ohmic dissipation, I will let this hang ...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The discharges in my plasma ball are constant as long as I leave the switch turned on. How does "magnetic reconnection" stay "constant" and heat even individual loops to millions of degrees again?

Again you have not understood a word of what I explained to you, just keep your mind closed MM, that way you don't have to worry.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Ok, so what? Birkeland's loops remained there for as long as he kept the power turned on. He had no problems with longevity of the loop because it wasn't "shear" force that powered it. A shear scenario would tend to be short lived.

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.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Again, that is simply expected and predicted in Birkeland's work. What's your point?

My point is that they are not discharges. Sheesh, read!

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Which explains your witch trials related to anything about his work over at Baut?

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

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The things I'm describing were all lab tested by Birkeland and his team, or postulated by Birkeland himself in the case of a fission power source. They created jets and loops and lots of the same things we observe in satellite images.

Yeah, and experimentation stopped after Birkeland died.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That should be done in a lab, not on website in cyberspace. Instead of spending all your time and money on magic magnetic fields I suggest you folks spend more time in the lab in real experimental settings with real plasma. In spite of all Birkeland's work you refuse to even discuss the bulk of his work on forums where you moderate and you hold witch trials for anyone who dares to do so. That is not science, that is religion. When are you folks ever going to stop playing with your invisible magic math constructs and get in a lab and practice real experimental science for a change? Plasma has predictable properties that are not that difficult to understand as long as you understand that it's "current carrying" plasma.

Nature does not "do" magnetic reconnection. It does generate "discharges" on virtually every planet in the solar system an it generates x-rays and gamma rays that way every single day. Why would you not expect discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere as well?

No, you could easily write down the equations MM, but then, you don't know the math, and you just throw around words and use Birkeland as your religion, without even trying to see wheter after Birkies death anything new has been discovered (a well maybe by B's acolyte Alfvén) or experimented on.

You are lost in the first half of the 20th century, MM, please try to catch up with the 21th century.

tusenfem · 1st July 2009, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It works *A LOT*.

No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge.

The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why?

That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride.

It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments.

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea, both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this.

Ziggurat · 1st July 2009, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

You're playing "definition games" rather than to deal with the obvious.

No. I'm trying to find out what the terms you use mean. Nobody knows, and your previous answer doesn't help.

Quote:

Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere occur all the time. They are a "natural" event that occurs on other bodies in space too. The only body in space where you seem to reject this process is in the solar atmosphere

I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere. Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown. Which happens in insulators under high fields. What happens in conductors if you ramp up the field? You get a continuous increase in current (opposing the buildup of more voltage, BTW). So it's just not possible to get discharge like that in a conductor. And yes, we can observe that on earth. Now, what's different about the solar atmosphere compared to the earth's atmosphere? Why, the solar atmosphere is a plasma! And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors! So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge!

Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity.

Michael Mozina · 1st July 2009, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface.

You have no intengrity. That's not what I said. What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid. You wouldn't understand anything about intellectual honesty however so I 'm sure you heard only what you wanted to hear.

Quote:

That's exactly what I said.

None of us thought either position was a "nutty idea". That was your unethical behaviors running amuck.

Quote:

And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site?

Why should I bother explaining NASA and LMSAL images to you "quantitatively"? I've provided you with links to all the images and you can look up all the "numbers" for yourself. I will explain them quantitatively for you if you like.

Quote:

You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail,

WHICH SPECIFIC DETAIL IN THAT SPECIFIC IMAGE DID YOU OR ANYONE ELSE "EXPLAIN"?

Quote:

yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail?

You mean besides the other 4 or 5 website forums where I've already done it?

Quote:

Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done.

When did you intend to explain *QUALITATIVELY* (not via math) *ANY* single event in observed in any single specific pixel of that image? You did nothing more than spew mechanical facts about a RD imaging process, including one "fact" that turned out to be utterly false. RD imagery does cause something to remain rigid as any LASCO image can demonstrate. Whatever credibility you had prior to that comment went flying out the window, especially since I've busted you on that very same statement once before. You evidently don't even care to learn when you're proven wrong so you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" comment was simply over the top in terms of pointless dialog from you. Clearly you have no idea what's physically going on in that image, or you would not be going "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" Gah.

Quote:

Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all.

Please have Dr. Hurlburt come over here and explain *ANYTHING SPECIFIC* about the image. Your single appeal to authority fallacy is meaningless. Unless he has something more to offer than "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?", I don't see evidence that you, he or anyone else here understand anything specific at all about this image. You may be able to figure out the the mechanics, like the pixel manipulation mechanics, but you have no clue how to deal with what's going on in the image, or how it effects the image. Your comment about the RD software causing the patterns is clearly and absolutely false. If you can't get that right, there is no way in hell you'll get anything else right either. You're clueless and the silence from the rest of this crew is deafening when it comes to specific details or physical explanations.

Michael Mozina · 1st July 2009, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere.

What do you mean by "within", and how can you reject something that has been physically demonstrated to work in a lab? Birkeland's coronal loops occurred *above* a metal sphere, not necessarily inside (within) it.

Quote:

Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown.

You mean atoms turn to plasma and get ionized in the electrical current?

Quote:

And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors!

Ya, but somehow you've convinced yourself they aren't conducting anything. What else could possibly be driving that solar wind process?

Quote:

So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge!

By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already? Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action? What would you call those current carrying threads if not "discharges"? Let me guess, "magnetic lines"?

Quote:

Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity.

Please. Due to a lack of obvious errors on your part thus far, your personal credibility may be a bit higher than say GeeMack who's already stuck his foot down his throat, but until I hear you folks qualitatively explain anything specific about that RD image, I'm not impressed. So far it's been all talk and no action in terms of offering actual detailed explanations of the events in that image.

Michael Mozina · 1st July 2009, 11:59 AM

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy.

Oh baloney. It works in a lab. You guys really need more lab time doing real experiments.

Quote:

The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea,

It's not a "stagnant ion sea", it's a moving flowing environment where protons are not solid or connected to other protons so they too move around and are affected by the flow.

Quote:

both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this.

Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible".

Tim Thompson · 1st July 2009, 12:15 PM

Note emphasis mine:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid.

Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can.
Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma.
Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma"). I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun?

Ziggurat · 1st July 2009, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already?

It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor.

Quote:

Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action?

Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas?

Michael Mozina · 1st July 2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor.

But more of it can become ionized in a discharge scenario.

Quote:

Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas?

So what makes you think it's all that different in space?

I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted.

Ziggurat · 1st July 2009, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

It's like you all have a mental block

Time and time again, you've been proven wrong. Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas. Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use. Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics. You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories.

GeeMack · 1st July 2009, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Originally Posted by GeeMack

So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said.

You have no intengrity. That's not what I said. What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than *ONLY* the possibility of a solid. You wouldn't understand anything about intellectual honesty however so I 'm sure you heard only what you wanted to hear.

Fine, you agreed to use the term "rigid". That's not the point. You've acknowledged that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That is the point.

Quote:

None of us thought either position was a "nutty idea". That was your unethical behaviors running amuck.

I don't care if he thought your idea was nutty, or if you thought his was. You're a couple of crackpots. He doesn't agree with your silly conjecture that the Sun has a solid iron surface unless he has completely changed his mind about the location of the iron in his silly conjecture.

Quote:

Why should I bother explaining NASA and LMSAL images to you "quantitatively"? I've provided you with links to all the images and you can look up all the "numbers" for yourself.

You should explain them quantitatively because that how the process of science works. Without describing your fantasy with real numbers, so that other people can check those numbers and see if your fantasy makes any sense in the real universe where real scientists work, all you have is an unsubstantiated claim. In all these years of you blathering on various forums you haven't ever explained that very first image on your web site in any scientific, quantitative way. Yet you are quite insistent on lying about other people not explaining it.

Quote:

I will explain them quantitatively for you if you like.

I'd like. Have at it. Start with these: How high are the mountains. How deep are the valleys? What angle is the light coming from? What's the scale of the image in kilometers per pixel? How big an area does the entire image cover?

Quote:

WHICH SPECIFIC DETAIL IN THAT SPECIFIC IMAGE DID YOU OR ANYONE ELSE "EXPLAIN"?

I explained the reason for the varying lightness or darkness of every single pixel. Reality Check explained every single pixel. His explanation agrees with mine. Several people on SFN and BAUT explained every single pixel, explanations that also match mine exactly. Name a pixel, any pixel, and that's a specific detail that we've explained.

Quote:

You mean besides the other 4 or 5 website forums where I've already done it?

... you say, without providing a shred of substantiation to your claim. No, Michael, you never have been willing to stick your neck out far enough to offer up any numbers to go along with your fantasy about that image.

Quote:

When did you intend to explain *QUALITATIVELY* (not via math) *ANY* single event in observed in any single specific pixel of that image? You did nothing more than spew mechanical facts about a RD imaging process, including one "fact" that turned out to be utterly false. RD imagery does cause something to remain rigid as any LASCO image can demonstrate.

And you're still wrong. But, being as I'm a nice guy willing to give you a break, prove that running difference images actually show static structure or features. Oh, and your incessant whining, "It looks like it to me," isn't going to cut it. Bring in your favorite image analysis expert and have him/her explain how a running difference image can show static features and allow a view thousands of kilometers into an opaque body of plasma. Yours is so far nothing more than an unsubstantiated (and demonstrably wrong) opinion.

Quote:

Whatever credibility you had prior to that comment went flying out the window, especially since I've busted you on that very same statement once before. You evidently don't even care to learn when you're proven wrong so you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" comment was simply over the top in terms of pointless dialog from you. Clearly you have no idea what's physically going on in that image, or you would not be going "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" Gah.

There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. Everyone except you agrees on that point. Move on.

Quote:

Please have Dr. Hurlburt come over here and explain *ANYTHING SPECIFIC* about the image.

He explained specifically that what you see that appears to be a surface is an optical illusion and isn't a surface at all. I'd say that's pretty darned specific, especially since it flushes your entire crackpot delusion right down the toilet.

Quote:

Your single appeal to authority fallacy is meaningless. Unless he has something more to offer than "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?", I don't see evidence that you, he or anyone else here understand anything specific at all about this image. You may be able to figure out the the mechanics, like the pixel manipulation mechanics, but you have no clue how to deal with what's going on in the image, or how it effects the image. Your comment about the RD software causing the patterns is clearly and absolutely false. If you can't get that right, there is no way in hell you'll get anything else right either. You're clueless and the silence from the rest of this crew is deafening when it comes to specific details or physical explanations.

If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them.

Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image. But again, this issue was put to rest over three years ago. You're the only one who hasn't caught up, Michael.

Oh, and here's one that hasn't slipped past your wall of willful ignorance: Why do you suppose not one single professional or academic anywhere on Earth in the field of physics, astrophysics, or any related field is willing to agree with your crazy idea that the Sun has a solid surface?

tusenfem · 2nd July 2009, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible".

Okay, I took the pdf again, and looked through many pages, starting at 664. The math starts later, but that is about (see page 697-698 of the book, that is 802 of the pdf page counting)

Originally Posted by Birkeland

135. We have discussed above the problem of the mouvement of an electrically charged particle about a magnetic and gravitating sphere, when the particle is ejected in the plane of the magnetic equator, and thus always remains there. We saw that there were boundary-circles towards which the particles, under certain conditions, could draw nearer and nearer, this giving rise to the formation of planets. It still remains for us to investigate the conditions outside the plane of the equator whether the formation of planets is also possible there, when the particles are flung out anywhere on the sphere or not.

This is all really nice what he does, and then basically goes on on this topic in the next pages, calculating all kinds of boundaries and circles that particles in that system of a magnetized and gravitating sphere can or cannot reach. Up to now I have seen no mention of any electric field being used. And basically, these calculations have to do with the creation of planets as our old friend writes on page 706:

Originally Posted by Birkeland

(end of section 135)
Hence we may conclude, that formation of planets will hardly be possible outside the equatorial plane. If after all a multitude of trajectories could approach asymptotically a common curve outside the equatorial plane, this curve as we have shown could not lie in a plane passing through the centre of the sphere, and as further the particles certainly very soon will lose their charge, they will come to move in the most different directions. The only possibility for formation of planets must be, that the particles approached a common curve lying in a plane through the centre of the magnetic sphere, and this we have proved to be impossible.

Yes, the particles are charged, but no there is no electric field, only gravity and the magnetic field of the sphere. However in section 1.36 he claims the following:

Originally Posted by Birkeland

Our mathematical investigations have shown as their result that if boundary-circles exist for all the velocities with which material corpuscles are expelled from the central body, the corpuscles will either return to the central body (this being what will happen in the great majority of cases), or the particles will continue to approach nearer and nearer to the boundary-circles. Possibly some velocities may also be sufficiently great to cause the particles in question to leave the system and retire indefinitely.

Concerning the charge of the particles, we may imagine three cases:
I. When the particles are not charged. They will then either retire indefinitely, or fall down again.
II. When the particles are so highly charged that the electrostatic influence dominates that of gravitation.
III. When the particles carry a charge of medium strength, so that the electrostatic influence plays an important part side by side with gravitation, which, however, is the dominating force.

If we consider negative particles in case II, we shall easily be able to prove that they can in approach boundary-circles, but the radius of these circles must be < (1 + sqrt(2))r₀ .

However, in the equations that Birkeland used up to this point there were (unless I have not looked well enough) only the magnetic field and the gravitational field in the equations of motion of the particles. So, I don't know exactly how to rhyme this, without going detailed through the derivation, for which I do not have time right now. However, the rest of the mathematical analysis is based on getting the particles to certain limiting circles and thus creating the planets and until now I have not found anything that describes the solar wind, or electrons being accelerated by an electric field from the sun to the heliopshere (or whatever Birkeland may have called it as that term probably did not exist in his time) and the electrons dragging along the ions.

I am gladly set straight if I have made an error in my skipping through the Birkeland book. Maybe I missed how the solar wind is created.

tusenfem · 2nd July 2009, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So what makes you think it's all that different in space?

The gas in a "plasma ball" is basically like the Earth's atmosphere, very very small ionization level, and because of the method used, there are lots of discharges like lightning in the Earth's atmosphere.

The gas in space is at least 99% ionized if not more.

Methinks, thars a difference.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted.

Michael, equal amounts of positive and negative charge are whizzing by the Earth at basically equal velocity. Thus this flow does not constitute a current because current is:

$<br /> j = n_e * v_e *q_e + \Sigma_i n_i * v_i * q_i<br />$

Moving charges does not equate a net current, this is just basic electrodynamics and Birkeland would have told you so.

There is, however, a slight net current flowing, which is created by the heliospheric current sheet in combination with the Parker spiral of the solar wind. This current is necessary to separate the two magnetic hemispheres of the heliosphere (field pointing away from the sun and field pointing towards the sun). Because the current must be perpendicular to the field, this results in a small component of the current in the (anti)solar direction.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Time and time again, you've been proven wrong.

Excuse me, but you can't "prove me wrong" by ignoring every single detail in the image. You'd have to actually address the image *DETAILS* and explain them in some fashion or another to 'prove me wrong'. Since the whole lot of you refuses to even address *ANY* of the details of the image, you haven't "proven" anything other than the fact you collectively can't and won't explain the image.

Quote:

Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas.

You guys make up strawman cartoon characteratures of my ideas and attack them, you never actually listen or respond the model I've actually presented. I doubt you could even explain it properly let, let alone honestly critique it.

Quote:

Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use.

I'm willing to do that, but you seem to refuse to even address a single specific detail of the images. What can I do but throw up my hands in discust? Don't you figure there was some reason I came to these conclusions that had something to do with the details we observe in these images? If you can't and won't explain them, all that tells me is that none of you have any valid method to explain these images in terms of standard solar theory. I tried to explain them using standard solar theory myself, but alas it never fit. Birkeland's solar model does jive with these observations of "rigid" (I'll define that for Tim in the next post) features in these images at a depth that is consistent with his experiments.

Quote:

Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics.

This coming from the guy that hasn't touched a *SINGLE* specific detail that that specific image... Yawn. More personal attack, no focus on the science. You folks are becoming painfully predictable.

Quote:

You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories.

If you mean "learning about" all sorts of invisible metaphysical friends of yours, no, not really. If you mean learn about this image based on standard solar theory, I am interested in hearing your explanation. So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us. What can I do? I can't make you address the details of the image, but the fact you won't touch them tells me volumes. None of you really have a valid explanation of what's going on at the level of actual physics. If it's not a math formula, and it's about actual physics and physical processes, you guys don't understand diddly squat. You're all bluster, and no science. Not one detail in that image has been touched by any of you.

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 11:48 AM

Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

.So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us.

The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image:

Originally Posted by GeeMack

There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael.

If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them.

Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image.

An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer. You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive. Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist.

This is very bizarre behaviour.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson

Note emphasis mine:

Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can.

Fair enough. I'll define it loosely as a pattern of persistence of structures with "very limited change/time", specifically compared to the plasma structures in the solar atmosphere.

Let's start by talking about the "lifespan" of various "structures' in the photosphere. Any K-band image of the photosphere shows us a series of "structures" that are located at the surface of the photosphere. These "structures" have a very limited lifespan of around 10 minutes or so, because the whole surface is convecting heat, much like a boiling liquid. Kosovichev's Doppler images (including some images he has emailed to me personally) show very consistent features *under* the photosphere, like that image on the tsunami page. They typically also show us the waves that pass through the photosphere. In every way the photosphere acts a lot like a liquid as defined in MHD theory.

That rigid feature that I circled in Kosovichev's video however is "persistent" and unaffected by the wave in the photosphere in terms of it's overall shape, size, outline and lifespan. Why is that?

During the CME event in that RD image we also find "persistent features" that are not consistent with "light plasma" in a "light plasma" atmosphere, but rather these features have a persistence and lifespan that far exceeds anything we find in the photosphere. The chromosphere in Hinode images shows that this part of the atmosphere is even more dynamic than the photosphere, and of course the corona reaches millions of degrees Kelvin and it's also extremely dynamic. How do we get persistence in such a dynamic and changing environment like a CME event in the case of the RD image? How about that angular structure in Kosovichev's Doppler image? Why is that feature persistent throughout the whole movie?

Quote:

Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma.

A dense plasma is one that contains more ions per cubic meter than a light plasma It may also be composed of significantly heavier elements. It could be cooler as well.

Quote:

Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma").

I do not personally expect plasma to ever become "rigid" which is why I believe we're looking at a solid crust in these images, not simply a more dense layer of plasma.

Quote:

I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun?

Rigid in this case is simply a matter of noticing which structures 'change over time', and which ones do not change as rapidly if at all. Whereas light plasma features in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, these features in the RD and Dopper images have a lifespan that is far in excess of anything related to light plasma in the solar atmosphere. The Doppler image in particular shows key features that can only be located *UNDERNEATH* the photosphere.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but...

The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image:

GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael.

Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are *LOTS* of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements.

He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images?

Quote:

An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer.

Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. I'm also *CERTAIN* the good Doctor would vehemently disagree GM that there is no flying stuff to be seen in the image. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, Hurlburt's one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image.

Quote:

You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive.

Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image?

Quote:

Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist.

One cannot show anything conclusively by ignoring every detail in the image, making obviously false statements, and by avoiding the details entirely. That only demonstrates conclusively that they can't actually explain the events in this image, so they're intentionally avoiding dealing the the details in these images.

Quote:

This is very bizarre behaviour.

IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event?

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael.

Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are *LOTS* of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements.

I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process. The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image. GeeMack can correct me on this if I am misunderstanding him.

Quote:

He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images?

All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features.

Quote:

Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, his one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate. (If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to be a very appropriate authority.

Quote:

Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image?

Yes.

Quote:

IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event?

GM and RC have made it plain to me that looking for distinct physical features in an RD image is nonsensical. This is completely different than saying that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event, which is clearly not what anybody is saying.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process.

So we should be able to observe it in the original images, and also the RD images as "changes over time".

Quote:

The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image.

That is false. If there were no 'flying things", (specifically plasma), we would not have a CME at all. The fact it's a CME *requires* that there be lots of flying plasma to be observed in both the original images, and as moving things in the RD images as well.

Quote:

All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features.

That is false. A RD image from LASCO shows physical things. It shows physical stars in the background. It shows physical waves of plasma flying off the sun. It shows these things because it shows us changes over time, and also more persistent features too, as in the case of the stars and planets in the background. They physically exist in nature and they show up in the original and RD image. They show up a bit differently in the RD images than in the original images, but that "flying stuff" and those patterns exist in nature and can be observed in RD images.

Quote:

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate.

No, it's when you *ASSUME* a person is right *ONLY* because they are in a place of authority.

Quote:

(If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to a very appropriate authority.

Then let him come over here and provide us with actual explanations to the details observed in these images. I'm certain he will not do a worse job that GM, but until I hear his actual explanations to these details, I can't say whether than means anything to me or not.

Quote:

Yes.

Then you know nothing at all about these images or the processes they show us. There is no way you can "analyze" these images properly if you don't understand what you're looking at. This is a CME event. There is no way that things are not flying around in the images because that is what the images show us. They show us "changes over time" and things that do not change over time as well. If there are changes happening we will observe them.

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

No, it's when you *ASSUME* a person is right *ONLY* because they are in a place of authority.

In formal logic, it is fallacious. In informal logic, it is not. GeeMack used it correctly in its proper - i.e., informal - context.

As to the rest: I don't seriously expect to dent your armour when you are oblivious to the blows of those far more qualified than me (or you). I just find your behaviour fascinating in a gory traffic accident kind of way.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

That is false. If there were no 'flying things", (specifically plasma), we would not have a CME at all. The fact it's a CME *requires* that there be lots of flying plasma to be observed in both the original images, and as moving things in the RD images as well.

That is false. A RD image from LASCO shows physical things. It shows physical stars in the background. It shows physical waves of plasma flying off the sun. It shows these things because it shows us changes over time, and also more persistent features too, as in the case of the stars and planets in the background. They physically exist in nature and they show up in the original and RD image. They show up a bit differently in the RD images than in the original images, but that "flying stuff" and those patterns exist in nature and can be observed in RD images.

This is one of the delusions that Michael Mozina is spewing in this thread (others include that 171A band images can detect the tiny contribution from the photopsphere, magnetic fields do not contain energy, etc.).

RD images never show "physical things". They are computer generated animations of changes in the radiation emitted from physical things. Thus they never show persistant physical features.

The "features" in the TRACE RD animation have been explained to MM many times before but here we go again:

Every pixel in every frame in the animation is a record of the change of the pixel from the previous frame.
The "mountain ranges" are changes in the flares in the corona. They are probably getting brighter as they climb toward the detector. In addition the flares seem to be expanding a bit - the mountains in the "mountain range" actually appear out of nowhere during the animation (see the upper part of the animation).
The "flying stuff are changes in position and temperature of the material ejected by the CME in the corona.
They are neither "flying" or "stuff" in the RD animation..
They are flying stuff in the original images.

Is that simple enough for you Michael Mozina?

Is there any "feature" that is not explained? If so can you tell us the frame number and list the pixels in it (see the first explanation above).

Also a link to the "RD image from LASCO shows physical things" would be good. My guess is that the "stars in the background" are actually a record of the changes in positions of the stars in the background.

ETA:
Added the bits in red.
There is no way to tell from the RD animation what actvity in the corona is changing in temperature and/or position. Astronomers thus look at the original images to identify what is happerning:

Quote:

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

GeeMack · 2nd July 2009, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Excuse me, but you can't "prove me wrong" by ignoring every single detail in the image. You'd have to actually address the image *DETAILS* and explain them in some fashion or another to 'prove me wrong'. Since the whole lot of you refuses to even address *ANY* of the details of the image, you haven't "proven" anything other than the fact you collectively can't and won't explain the image.

It's been done, so you're a liar.

Quote:

You guys make up strawman cartoon characteratures of my ideas and attack them, you never actually listen or respond the model I've actually presented. I doubt you could even explain it properly let, let alone honestly critique it.

Interesting comment from a guy who apparently can't explain his own idea in a way that anyone can understand.

Quote:

I'm willing to do that, but you seem to refuse to even address a single specific detail of the images.

Liar.

Quote:

What can I do but throw up my hands in discust?

You could actually explain what in the hell you're talking about in a way that sane, intelligent human beings could understand. You haven't done that yet.

Quote:

Don't you figure there was some reason I came to these conclusions that had something to do with the details we observe in these images?

Could that reason perhaps be mental illness? What other reason do you suppose would account for the fact that nobody else interprets the details we observe in these images the same way you do? I'm genuinely curious. One of my main reasons for even staying involved in these discussion, aside from the occasional pleasure I get out of seeing you set yourself up to take another lickin', is a serious interest in the mind set of someone who could be so stupid, so totally detached from reality on one issue, as you are, and still be mentally capable of tying his own shoes, feeding himself, and performing other mundane daily tasks.

Quote:

If you can't and won't explain them, all that tells me is that none of you have any valid method to explain these images in terms of standard solar theory.

When it was explained, you ignored it. You're a liar. By definition, an ignorant liar.

Quote:

I tried to explain them using standard solar theory myself, but alas it never fit. Birkeland's solar model does jive with these observations of "rigid" (I'll define that for Tim in the next post) features in these images at a depth that is consistent with his experiments.

But since you can't see anything below about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, you're clearly wrong. Also, and probably more importantly, since you've proven that you'll misrepresent Birkeland in order to support your delusion, your interpretation of any of his work is so subjective as to be scientifically useless.

Quote:

This coming from the guy that hasn't touched a *SINGLE* specific detail that that specific image... Yawn. More personal attack, no focus on the science. You folks are becoming painfully predictable.

As are your incessant lies.

Quote:

If you mean "learning about" all sorts of invisible metaphysical friends of yours, no, not really. If you mean learn about this image based on standard solar theory, I am interested in hearing your explanation.

No, you're not. You've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Quote:

So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us.

Liar. You want actual physics, go take a course.

Quote:

What can I do?

Since you asked, you could learn to read and write English in a way that allows you to actually communicate effectively with sane, intelligent human beings? You could maybe see a mental health professional and work on getting back in touch with reality? You know, since you asked.

Quote:

I can't make you address the details of the image, but the fact you won't touch them tells me volumes. None of you really have a valid explanation of what's going on at the level of actual physics.

Start with a couple of sequential 171Å wavelength images of million-ish degree emissions from a CME located in the coronal region of the Sun, some 2000+ kilometers above the photosphere and outward. Run those images through a software program that compares them pixel by pixel and prints a graph or chart showing the difference between each corresponding pixel. Oddly, that output image may appear to show texture, surface features, and terrain. Of course that apparent terrain isn't actually a surface. It is a simple, easily understood optical illusion that has been thoroughly explained by the actual experts who were responsible for designing the research program, and acquiring and processing the data. There's all you need to know about the physics of your running difference image, Michael. You can probably learn about the physics of the CME itself by studying any starting level college textbook that deals with solar physics.

One paragraph. Boy, was that easy. And you've been lying about getting no explanation for how many years now?

Quote:

If it's not a math formula, and it's about actual physics and physical processes, you guys don't understand diddly squat. You're all bluster, and no science. Not one detail in that image has been touched by any of you.

Details? Touched 'em all, liar.

And, how about this one? Why is there not one single researcher, educator, or other professional in any field related to solar physics who thinks you're right about your fantasy? How is it that you've never piqued anyone's interest in this solid surfaced Sun crap enough to get anyone to work with you, do some math that you obviously can't do, help you with the physics that you are so woefully ignorant of, explain your wacky conjecture in plain English since you are unable to do that yourself? Really, a sane person would look for rational answers to those questions. Only a dyed-in-the-wool lunatic crackpot would ignore them. Where are you on this, Michael?

GeeMack · 2nd July 2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation".

Yeah? Everyone else believes me and none of them believe you, so I'm kickin' your ass here, ain't I?

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

It's been done, so you're a liar.

WHICH SPECIFIC detail did you address? Details? What details?

Quote:

Interesting comment from a guy who apparently can't explain his own idea in a way that anyone can understand.

I've done so plenty of times to people who *WISH* to actually 'understand'.

Quote:

Liar.

This is your typically sleazy sort of response. You are the liar. You've not discussed a single detail in the image. The few things you actually stated were clearly false. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" You're pathetic

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Yeah? Everyone else believes me and none of them believe you, so I'm kickin' your ass here, ain't I?

If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Sheesh.

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Sheesh.

RC just explained it clearly. Again.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

This is one of the delusions that Michael Mozina is spewing in this thread (others include that 171A band images can detect the tiny contribution from the photopsphere,

Er, where did I say it could detect tiny contributions from the photosphere? You made that up on your own.

Quote:

magnetic fields do not contain energy, etc.).

I didn't say that either. I said magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a complete and fully formed continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to "reconnect" to other "lines".

Quote:

RD images never show "physical things". They are computer generated animations of changes in the radiation emitted from physical things. Thus they never show persistant physical features.

They also show the changes *OF* physical things, like the location of the "flying stuff" blowing from the lower right toward the upper left after the CME event. It is because that "flying stuff" changes locations that we are able to watch it move! Get real.

Quote:

The "features" in the TRACE RD animation have been explained to MM many times before but here we go again:[list=1][*]Every pixel in every frame in the animation is a record of the change of the pixel from the previous frame.

We all agree with that point. So how is that specific to any particular detail in the image?

Quote:

[*]The "mountain ranges" are changes in the flares.

The features aren't "changing" however. Why is that?

Quote:

They are probably getting brighter as they climb toward the detector.

Then why are the bases of the loops always brightest in the 171A solar moss images?

Quote:

In addition the flares seem to be expanding a bit - the mountains in the "mountain range" actually appear out of nowhere during the animation (see the upper part of the animation).

They don't appear out of nowhere, the structures don't exist in the first frame because there is no image before that first frame to compare it to or subtract it from. All RD images become persistent with two usable original images, but you need a minimum of two of them. This particular image could be an "averaged' image but these items do not just "appear out of thin air". They last for days in SOHO and STEREO RD imagery.

Quote:

The "flying stuff are changes in position and temperature of the material ejected by the CME.

Hey, you actually "explained" real visual detail of the RD image! Congrats.

Quote:

They are neither "flying" or "stuff" in the RD animation..

Ooops, you then blew it. False. The plasma that comes from the CME is certainly visible in the original and RD image. There is "flying stuff" in both sets of images. The lighter parts of the RD image is where the hot stuff moved to, whereas the darker regions are where the hot stuff moved from. You can see the changes over time, but those changes are directly related to flying plasma in the solar atmosphere. These features are not there just because. They are there because there is flying stuff in the atmosphere which moves during the CME process.

Quote:

They are flying stuff in the original images.

Ok, but now which is it? Is plasma flying around in these images or not? You can't have it both ways.

Quote:

Is that simple enough for you Michael Mozina?

Not really. You more or less contracted yourself particularly on point 3. You didn't address any of the persistent features (why they are persistent), why we observe a peeling effect during the process, etc. It's a rather limited "explanation", but you did get on thing right.

Quote:

Is there any "feature" that is not explained?

Ya, all those persistent angular features, that peeling effect we observe, the visual changes related to the "flying stuff" after the CME, etc. There's a lot you didn't touch.

Quote:

If so can you tell us the frame number and list the pixels in it (see the first explanation above).

Pick any of the full frames and explain the angular features.

Quote:

Also a link to the "RD image from LASCO shows physical things" would be good. My guess is that the "stars in the background" are actually a record of the changes in positions of teh stars in the background.

Try the SOHO archives. They are arranged by date in monthly folders. Look for *_dit images.
http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/

Show me any angular features in a LASCO RD images that are persistent over time and that are directly related to the RD imaging process rather than something actually in the image.

Reality Check · 2nd July 2009, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

RC just explained it clearly. Again.

Not only is he incapable of understanding the many simple explanations of the RD animation that he has been given over many years, he is also unable to comprehend the actual caption for the TRACE 171A image and RD animation:
Coronal mass ejection

Quote:

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

The bright and dark areas of his "mountain ranges" are explained by the scientists who took the images as temperature changes!
The movement of his "flying stuff" is the CME ejected material flying upward and then falling back.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

RC just explained it clearly. Again.

So which is it? Flying stuff, or no flying stuff?

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

So which is it? Flying stuff, or no flying stuff?

Flying stuff in the CME. No flying stuff in the RD images. Why is this so difficult to understand?

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

Not only is he incapable of understanding the many simple explanations of the RD animation that he has been given over many years,

You mean like "flying stuff, what flying stuff"?

Quote:

he is also unable to comprehend the actual caption for the TRACE 171A image and RD animation:
Coronal mass ejection

The bright and dark areas of his "mountain ranges" are explained by the scientists who took the images as temperature changes!

Nobody is disputing the statement that the bright process observed is a CME, so what does that have to do with 'mountain ranges" prior to the CME event and after the CME event is over? Those angular features are there before, during and after the CME.

Quote:

The movement of his "flying stuff" is the CME ejected material flying upward and then falling back.

They didn't claim "flying stuff? What flying stuff?", did they?

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Flying stuff in the CME. No flying stuff in the RD images. Why is this so difficult to understand?

The RD images do show the flying stuff too. You can see it move from the CME event location in the lower right, and move toward the upper left during the CME process. There is certainly "flying stuff" that shows up as brighter, *AND FAR MORE MOBILE* regions in the image. What's so difficult to understand about that?

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

I didn't say that either. I said magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a complete and fully formed continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to "reconnect" to other "lines".

You seem to be losing track of your claims in this thread:

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is *BECAUSE OF* the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy?

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

The RD images do show the flying stuff too. You can see it move from the CME event location in the lower right, and move toward the upper left during the CME process. There is certainly "flying stuff" that shows up as brighter, *AND FAR MORE MOBILE* regions in the image. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Allow me to be clearer:

Flying stuff in the CME. Illusion of flying stuff in the RD images. Better?

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:57 PM

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...828_170708.gif
FYI, here is an original image from that set which you can find on RC's link.

Notice that the "flying stuff" can be seen moving up and toward the top of the image. That flying stuff moves over time and therefore it shows up in the RD image as a moving light and dark pattern moving from the lower right toward the upper left of the image. The only reason we observe these things in the RD image is because they exist in the original images too.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Allow me to be clearer:

Flying stuff in the CME. Illusion of flying stuff in the RD images. Better?

Not really. It's not an "illusion" of any sort. It's a real process having a real effect on the RD images. The movement of the hot material is visible in both the original 171A images and also in the RD images. There is no "illusion" involved. It's real in every way.

D'rok · 2nd July 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

Not really. It's not an "illusion" of any sort. It's a real process having a real effect on the RD images. The movement of the hot material is visible in both the original 171A images and also in the RD images. There is no "illusion" involved. It's real in every way.

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

@RC and GeeMack
Thanks for the educational info and I hope your blood pressure is OK.

Michael Mozina · 2nd July 2009, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

You seem to be losing track of your claims in this thread:

The part you highlighted was perhaps overly simplistic and confusing. My bad. What I was trying to point out is that the magnetic field that we measure in this light plasma is *CAUSED BY* the flow of electrical current through the loop. A coronal loop is not a "frozen" magnetic line, but rather it is a moving column of flowing plasma full of kinetic energy, much like any discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. The magnetic fields are not there all by themselves doing all the work by themselves, and they are not driving the parade. The magnetic fields exist *BECAUSE OF* the current flow inside the loop and they are generated by the current flow inside that loop that is heating the plasma inside the loop. The field that forms does in fact "store energy", but only while the current flow remains. Once that current flow stops flowing through the loop, the field dissipates and it fades away just like when you turn off an ordinary plasma ball.

1st July 2009, 06:09 AM	#441
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by GeeMack Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That is false. He agrees with me that we can see this "stratification subsurface" in heliosiesmology data and in the RD images. As I said, we all (three, not two) agreed upon the term "rigid". We all agree that we can observe a "rigid" surface in those images. So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said. And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site? You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail, yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail? Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done. Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all.
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235

1st July 2009, 06:44 AM	#442
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina See lightning bolts and "electrical discharges through plasma" for further details. How exactly from this great distance did you decide that this "reconnection" process was between "magnetic lines" rather than between moving particles in plasma, or current streams? What is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that cannot be explained in ordinary current sheet acceleration experiments with electricity? And where exactly should I see that? We make observations, MM, looking at flares at the limb of the Sun, now we even get 3D images with STEREO of the stuff happening on the Sun. Other peeps that you ALSO look at observations, whether you believe it or not. Naturally, there are currents associated with reconnection, nobody ever stated otherwise, but you keep on ignoring the one fact that does not fit in your idea and that is that the topology of the magnetic field changes. And these changes cannot be created by extra currents or by induction or whatever, there has to be a null in the magnetic field at the X-point/line. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina The change in the field may create induction, but the change in topology is related to the particle movement not the magnetic field. But the magnetic field is also there if there are no particles, the particles themselves do not create the magnetic field that they are flowing along. The ions and the electrons decouple from the magnetic field in nested regions around the X-point/line. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's called a "short circuit" in plasma. Big deal. It's not anything you can't create here on Earth with ELECTRICITY. It is not a short circuit, whatever gives you that idea? You just look at currents and forget about the magnetic field. The magnetic field is an important part of magnetic reconnection. But this "discussion" will just go round and round until you give a complete description of what you think reconnection should be and explain the topological changes in the magnetotail of the Earth. I am looking forward to a consize model. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina How are you going to get a change in the magnetotail without a change in "current flow"? You must realize that the particles flowing into the Earth's magnosphere are a form of "current flow", right? They are whizzing by at a million miles per hour you know. No, I don't know that they are "whizzing away at million miles per hour" because that HIGHLY depends on the situation you are looking at. Also, I have no idea what kind of current flow you are talking about as there are various currents in the tail, some of which will change (e.g. the substrom current wedge will be created) others will basically remain the same (the cross tail current), so depending on more info I cannot give you any answer on this handwaving argument. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Your term "magnetic reconnection" is purely "made up". You could have slapped any EM term to the process, including "particle reconnection" (since they are doing the actual acceleration part) or "circuit reconnection" because the totals circuit energy determines what occurs at the point of "reconnection". Calling it "magnetic reconnection" however is like calling a short circuit between two copper wires a "magnetic reconnection" between the wires. Yes, the magnetic field topologies might change, but that change is directly related to the flow of electrons through the wire. In this case the conductor is simply made of plasma and it can move around and change it's physical topology. Big deal. The CURRENT FLOW will determine both the rate of reconnection and the total amount of reconnection. You just created that term to intentionally muddy the waters and to confuse the public. If there is something physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", what is it? Well "particle reconnection" makes even less sense because the particle are not connected to eachother. The term magnetic reconnection exactly describes what is happening and what is observed and what is experimented with and what is numerically modeled. The short circuit between two copper wires has NOTHING to do with reconnection, for one, because the magnetic fields acting in that process are negligible. In the process of magnetic reconnection the magnetic field is the most important part because the particles are magnetized. What is physically unique is that the topology of the magnetic field is changed that can only happen with mainstream reconnection and not by induction or currents. Then, from the X-point/line the plasma is accelerated because of the tension of the magnetic field lines, and the acceleration of the plasma is perpendicular to the direction of the magnetic field, exactly as one expects at an X site.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

1st July 2009, 07:36 AM	#443
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and COMPLETE continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all? Ohhhh playing word games again, MM. Just because you see only half of a loop, we should not call it loop. I think that any person looking at a picture of a coronal loop would call it a loop even if it is only half-a-one. This is just childish. 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. Another weird example is hole-conduction in semi conductors, where the hole has both a mass and a charge, whereas there is actually nothing there. Confusing, yes, but sometimes you have to go more into the stuff to understand it. The same can be said for many a research direction and not necessarily only in physics. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Literally millions of them. Well, you have looked at half-loops ... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Then they should be visible at the surface and also somewhat below the surface of the photosphere, particularly if they are heated at the bases of the loops by shear forces. Why would they only become visible "high up" in the atmosphere? Because the loops are denser than their surroundings, because they are hot and emit radiation, because because because. Don't insult yourself by asking such questions MM. Only when the contrast is big enough can something be seen, take a picture of a bright white wall and someone standing in the shadow of a tree that is cast on the wall. If you don't use your flash you will not be able to see the face. Too little contrast. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them AT the photosphere? see above Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Birkeland called them by their proper name - discharges. So did Bruce. 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. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Yes, but the x-rays are not visible at the base of the 171A images. Well, maybe your are looking at the wrong wavelength band? Just use ADS and find X-ray brightening of coronal loop foot points. Here is a start for you. Not everything revolves around one pathetic wavelength. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/mossyohkoh.jpg Notice the layered effect? What's that from? It's layered because two images have been put on top of eachother. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You're trying to tell me that a "shearing effect" in plasma that is like 1/15th the density of air at sea level is going to cause plasma to reach a million degrees? Come on. What's the more likely "cause", shearing or "discharge"? That Birkeland current flying off the sun in the image I posted for David sure has all the "twists" one expects to find in a "Birkeland current". The fact that YOU cannot imagine it happening does not mean that it does not happen. Apparently, you are not well versed in plasma physics. Just read up on all the papers I linked to, you might learn something. 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. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That "twisting" helix shape in plasma is called a "Birkeland Current". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...netic_rope.png It is often referred to as a "magnetic rope" as well, a term that Alfven explicitly explained as a "current carrying" z-pinch filament or Bennett pinch. 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. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What's with nature and all it's discharges? Discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees. "Shear" processes in wind never do that. 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. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What the hell is ohmic heating in loops unless you have "current flow" heating the loops? What part of my message did you not read MM? I clearly stated that in coronal loops currents are flowing. I claimed it at the top of the messages to which this was your reply and I claimed it several times hence. Bit short of memory are we, when we are excited about not understanding plasma physics.? The currents in the coronal loops, driven e.g. by the shear motion of the foot points (and that means that both foot pionts do not move in the same way to clear that up for you) can have Ohmic disspation. You might remember that from your days at highschool P = I² R. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Look at any electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. That's what I'm talking about. Nature has created a perfectly "natural" way to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely by running electrons through plasma. What exactly do you mean is specifically PHYSICALLY unique and different from a standard discharge when you say "magnetic reconnection"? When did magnetic reconnection ever "naturally" occur on Earth or Mars or Saturn or any of the places where nature has been shown to generate huge discharges? What do you think Ohmic disspation means? Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Compared to the plasma in those loops, it's nothing. The plasma in the loops is OOMS hotter than the plasma doing the "shearing" you describe. It's one thing to expect a 10K shearing effect, it's quite another to expect shearing to cause million degree coronal loops. As you obviously have not understood the shearing motion and the Ohmic dissipation, I will let this hang ... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina The discharges in my plasma ball are constant as long as I leave the switch turned on. How does "magnetic reconnection" stay "constant" and heat even individual loops to millions of degrees again? Again you have not understood a word of what I explained to you, just keep your mind closed MM, that way you don't have to worry. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Ok, so what? Birkeland's loops remained there for as long as he kept the power turned on. He had no problems with longevity of the loop because it wasn't "shear" force that powered it. A shear scenario would tend to be short lived. 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. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Again, that is simply expected and predicted in Birkeland's work. What's your point? My point is that they are not discharges. Sheesh, read! Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Which explains your witch trials related to anything about his work over at Baut? What witch trial? I only object to false interpretations of the things that Birkeland has done, like the claims you are making. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina The things I'm describing were all lab tested by Birkeland and his team, or postulated by Birkeland himself in the case of a fission power source. They created jets and loops and lots of the same things we observe in satellite images. Yeah, and experimentation stopped after Birkeland died. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That should be done in a lab, not on website in cyberspace. Instead of spending all your time and money on magic magnetic fields I suggest you folks spend more time in the lab in real experimental settings with real plasma. In spite of all Birkeland's work you refuse to even discuss the bulk of his work on forums where you moderate and you hold witch trials for anyone who dares to do so. That is not science, that is religion. When are you folks ever going to stop playing with your invisible magic math constructs and get in a lab and practice real experimental science for a change? Plasma has predictable properties that are not that difficult to understand as long as you understand that it's "current carrying" plasma. Nature does not "do" magnetic reconnection. It does generate "discharges" on virtually every planet in the solar system an it generates x-rays and gamma rays that way every single day. Why would you not expect discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere as well? No, you could easily write down the equations MM, but then, you don't know the math, and you just throw around words and use Birkeland as your religion, without even trying to see wheter after Birkies death anything new has been discovered (a well maybe by B's acolyte Alfvén) or experimented on. You are lost in the first half of the 20th century, MM, please try to catch up with the 21th century.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

1st July 2009, 07:52 AM	#444
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It works A LOT. No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge. The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why? That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride. It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments. Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period. Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? *Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea, both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this*.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

1st July 2009, 09:55 AM	#445
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,002	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina You're playing "definition games" rather than to deal with the obvious. No. I'm trying to find out what the terms you use mean. Nobody knows, and your previous answer doesn't help. Quote: Electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere occur all the time. They are a "natural" event that occurs on other bodies in space too. The only body in space where you seem to reject this process is in the solar atmosphere I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere. Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown. Which happens in insulators under high fields. What happens in conductors if you ramp up the field? You get a continuous increase in current (opposing the buildup of more voltage, BTW). So it's just not possible to get discharge like that in a conductor. And yes, we can observe that on earth. Now, what's different about the solar atmosphere compared to the earth's atmosphere? Why, the solar atmosphere is a plasma! And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors! So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge! Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st July 2009, 11:45 AM	#446
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by GeeMack So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. You have no intengrity. That's not what I said. What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than ONLY the possibility of a solid. You wouldn't understand anything about intellectual honesty however so I 'm sure you heard only what you wanted to hear. Quote: That's exactly what I said. None of us thought either position was a "nutty idea". That was your unethical behaviors running amuck. Quote: And Michael, when are you going to get around to explaining, quantitatively and in detail, that very first image on your web site? Why should I bother explaining NASA and LMSAL images to you "quantitatively"? I've provided you with links to all the images and you can look up all the "numbers" for yourself. I will explain them quantitatively for you if you like. Quote: You know, that image that you lie about when claiming nobody else has addressed it in detail, WHICH SPECIFIC DETAIL IN THAT SPECIFIC IMAGE DID YOU OR ANYONE ELSE "EXPLAIN"? Quote: yet you yourself have never been willing to describe it in detail? You mean besides the other 4 or 5 website forums where I've already done it? Quote: Scientifically. Quantitatively. Please explain what every pixel means, you know, like so many other people have done. When did you intend to explain QUALITATIVELY (not via math) ANY single event in observed in any single specific pixel of that image? You did nothing more than spew mechanical facts about a RD imaging process, including one "fact" that turned out to be utterly false. RD imagery does cause something to remain rigid as any LASCO image can demonstrate. Whatever credibility you had prior to that comment went flying out the window, especially since I've busted you on that very same statement once before. You evidently don't even care to learn when you're proven wrong so you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" comment was simply over the top in terms of pointless dialog from you. Clearly you have no idea what's physically going on in that image, or you would not be going "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" Gah. Quote: Please tell us exactly, specifically, and in detail, why Dr. Hurlburt from LMSAL is wrong when he says you're only seeing an optical illusion in that image and that it doesn't actually show any kind of surface at all. Please have Dr. Hurlburt come over here and explain ANYTHING SPECIFIC about the image. Your single appeal to authority fallacy is meaningless. Unless he has something more to offer than "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?", I don't see evidence that you, he or anyone else here understand anything specific at all about this image. You may be able to figure out the the mechanics, like the pixel manipulation mechanics, but you have no clue how to deal with what's going on in the image, or how it effects the image. Your comment about the RD software causing the patterns is clearly and absolutely false. If you can't get that right, there is no way in hell you'll get anything else right either. You're clueless and the silence from the rest of this crew is deafening when it comes to specific details or physical explanations.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

1st July 2009, 11:54 AM	#447
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I also reject electrical discharges occuring within a metal sphere. What do you mean by "within", and how can you reject something that has been physically demonstrated to work in a lab? Birkeland's coronal loops occurred above a metal sphere, not necessarily inside (within) it. Quote: Do you know why, Michael? Because electrical discharges (ie, lightning) happen because of dielectric breakdown. You mean atoms turn to plasma and get ionized in the electrical current? Quote: And what's one of the central characteristics of plasmas? They're conductors! Ya, but somehow you've convinced yourself they aren't conducting anything. What else could possibly be driving that solar wind process? Quote: So what should we not see in plasma that we do see in gas? Discharge! By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already? Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action? What would you call those current carrying threads if not "discharges"? Let me guess, "magnetic lines"? Quote: Once again, the plasma and electricity fanboys show they don't know anything about plasmas or electricity. Please. Due to a lack of obvious errors on your part thus far, your personal credibility may be a bit higher than say GeeMack who's already stuck his foot down his throat, but until I hear you folks qualitatively explain anything specific about that RD image, I'm not impressed. So far it's been all talk and no action in terms of offering actual detailed explanations of the events in that image.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 1st July 2009 at 11:55 AM.

1st July 2009, 11:59 AM	#448
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by tusenfem Michael Mozina, this whole process that you are trying to get working here does not work. And why not? *Because it violates Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy. Oh baloney. It works in a lab. You guys really need more lab time doing real experiments. Quote: The solar wind does not consist of fast electrons flying through a stagnant ion sea, It's not a "stagnant ion sea", it's a moving flowing environment where protons are not solid or connected to other protons so they too move around and are affected by the flow. Quote: both electrons and ions move at basically the same pace from the sun to the heliopause and no electric field from sun to heliopause can accomplish this*. Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible".
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

1st July 2009, 12:15 PM	#449
Tim Thompson Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969	Rigid Plasma? Note emphasis mine: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than ONLY the possibility of a solid. Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can. Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma. Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma"). I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun?
Tim Thompson Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 969	__________________ The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

1st July 2009, 12:34 PM	#450
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,002	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina By the way, are you really so naive as to believe that every atom in the solar atmosphere is ionized already? It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor. Quote: Have you ever seen a plasma ball in action? Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st July 2009, 03:51 PM	#451
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by Ziggurat It doesn't need to be fully ionized in order to be a conductor. But more of it can become ionized in a discharge scenario. Quote: Yes. Are you aware that most of what's inside is not in a plasma state? And that the part that is in a plasma state is in that state because of dielectric breakdown of insulating gas? So what makes you think it's all that different in space? I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

1st July 2009, 04:11 PM	#452
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,002	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina It's like you all have a mental block Time and time again, you've been proven wrong. Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas. Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use. Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics. You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

1st July 2009, 04:12 PM	#453
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Originally Posted by GeeMack So good, you acknowledge that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That's exactly what I said. You have no intengrity. That's not what I said. What I said is we all thought it would be appropriate to use the term "rigid" rather than solid because it was a more "intellectually honest" position and included the possibility of a dense plasma rather than ONLY the possibility of a solid. You wouldn't understand anything about intellectual honesty however so I 'm sure you heard only what you wanted to hear. Fine, you agreed to use the term "rigid". That's not the point. You've acknowledged that Oliver Manuel does not agree with your nutty notion that the Sun has a solid iron surface. That is the point. Quote: None of us thought either position was a "nutty idea". That was your unethical behaviors running amuck. I don't care if he thought your idea was nutty, or if you thought his was. You're a couple of crackpots. He doesn't agree with your silly conjecture that the Sun has a solid iron surface unless he has completely changed his mind about the location of the iron in his silly conjecture. Quote: Why should I bother explaining NASA and LMSAL images to you "quantitatively"? I've provided you with links to all the images and you can look up all the "numbers" for yourself. You should explain them quantitatively because that how the process of science works. Without describing your fantasy with real numbers, so that other people can check those numbers and see if your fantasy makes any sense in the real universe where real scientists work, all you have is an unsubstantiated claim. In all these years of you blathering on various forums you haven't ever explained that very first image on your web site in any scientific, quantitative way. Yet you are quite insistent on lying about other people not explaining it. Quote: I will explain them quantitatively for you if you like. I'd like. Have at it. Start with these: How high are the mountains. How deep are the valleys? What angle is the light coming from? What's the scale of the image in kilometers per pixel? How big an area does the entire image cover? Quote: WHICH SPECIFIC DETAIL IN THAT SPECIFIC IMAGE DID YOU OR ANYONE ELSE "EXPLAIN"? I explained the reason for the varying lightness or darkness of every single pixel. Reality Check explained every single pixel. His explanation agrees with mine. Several people on SFN and BAUT explained every single pixel, explanations that also match mine exactly. Name a pixel, any pixel, and that's a specific detail that we've explained. Quote: You mean besides the other 4 or 5 website forums where I've already done it? ... you say, without providing a shred of substantiation to your claim. No, Michael, you never have been willing to stick your neck out far enough to offer up any numbers to go along with your fantasy about that image. Quote: When did you intend to explain QUALITATIVELY (not via math) ANY single event in observed in any single specific pixel of that image? You did nothing more than spew mechanical facts about a RD imaging process, including one "fact" that turned out to be utterly false. RD imagery does cause something to remain rigid as any LASCO image can demonstrate. And you're still wrong. But, being as I'm a nice guy willing to give you a break, prove that running difference images actually show static structure or features. Oh, and your incessant whining, "It looks like it to me," isn't going to cut it. Bring in your favorite image analysis expert and have him/her explain how a running difference image can show static features and allow a view thousands of kilometers into an opaque body of plasma. Yours is so far nothing more than an unsubstantiated (and demonstrably wrong) opinion. Quote: Whatever credibility you had prior to that comment went flying out the window, especially since I've busted you on that very same statement once before. You evidently don't even care to learn when you're proven wrong so you repeat the same mistakes over and over again. The "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" comment was simply over the top in terms of pointless dialog from you. Clearly you have no idea what's physically going on in that image, or you would not be going "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?" Gah. There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. Everyone except you agrees on that point. Move on. Quote: Please have Dr. Hurlburt come over here and explain ANYTHING SPECIFIC about the image. He explained specifically that what you see that appears to be a surface is an optical illusion and isn't a surface at all. I'd say that's pretty darned specific, especially since it flushes your entire crackpot delusion right down the toilet. Quote: Your single appeal to authority fallacy is meaningless. Unless he has something more to offer than "flying stuff?, what flying stuff?", I don't see evidence that you, he or anyone else here understand anything specific at all about this image. You may be able to figure out the the mechanics, like the pixel manipulation mechanics, but you have no clue how to deal with what's going on in the image, or how it effects the image. Your comment about the RD software causing the patterns is clearly and absolutely false. If you can't get that right, there is no way in hell you'll get anything else right either. You're clueless and the silence from the rest of this crew is deafening when it comes to specific details or physical explanations. If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them. Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image. But again, this issue was put to rest over three years ago. You're the only one who hasn't caught up, Michael. Oh, and here's one that hasn't slipped past your wall of willful ignorance: Why do you suppose not one single professional or academic anywhere on Earth in the field of physics, astrophysics, or any related field is willing to agree with your crazy idea that the Sun has a solid surface?
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235

2nd July 2009, 12:38 AM	#454
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Again, this is simply a false statement. Birkeland even did a whole series of calculations for you after page 664 or so that were directly related to the movements of both positively and negatively charged particles from the sphere, but I doubt any of you bothered to read any of it. None of you bothers much to educate yourselves on what's actually been done in a lab before you claim it's "impossible". Okay, I took the pdf again, and looked through many pages, starting at 664. The math starts later, but that is about (see page 697-698 of the book, that is 802 of the pdf page counting) Originally Posted by Birkeland 135. We have discussed above the problem of the mouvement of an electrically charged particle about a magnetic and gravitating sphere, when the particle is ejected in the plane of the magnetic equator, and thus always remains there. We saw that there were boundary-circles towards which the particles, under certain conditions, could draw nearer and nearer, this giving rise to the formation of planets. It still remains for us to investigate the conditions outside the plane of the equator whether the formation of planets is also possible there, when the particles are flung out anywhere on the sphere or not. This is all really nice what he does, and then basically goes on on this topic in the next pages, calculating all kinds of boundaries and circles that particles in that system of a magnetized and gravitating sphere can or cannot reach. Up to now I have seen no mention of any electric field being used. And basically, these calculations have to do with the creation of planets as our old friend writes on page 706: Originally Posted by Birkeland (end of section 135) Hence we may conclude, that formation of planets will hardly be possible outside the equatorial plane. If after all a multitude of trajectories could approach asymptotically a common curve outside the equatorial plane, this curve as we have shown could not lie in a plane passing through the centre of the sphere, and as further the particles certainly very soon will lose their charge, they will come to move in the most different directions. The only possibility for formation of planets must be, that the particles approached a common curve lying in a plane through the centre of the magnetic sphere, and this we have proved to be impossible. Yes, the particles are charged, but no there is no electric field, only gravity and the magnetic field of the sphere. However in section 1.36 he claims the following: Originally Posted by Birkeland Our mathematical investigations have shown as their result that if boundary-circles exist for all the velocities with which material corpuscles are expelled from the central body, the corpuscles will either return to the central body (this being what will happen in the great majority of cases), or the particles will continue to approach nearer and nearer to the boundary-circles. Possibly some velocities may also be sufficiently great to cause the particles in question to leave the system and retire indefinitely. Concerning the charge of the particles, we may imagine three cases: I. When the particles are not charged. They will then either retire indefinitely, or fall down again. II. When the particles are so highly charged that the electrostatic influence dominates that of gravitation. III. When the particles carry a charge of medium strength, so that the electrostatic influence plays an important part side by side with gravitation, which, however, is the dominating force. If we consider negative particles in case II, we shall easily be able to prove that they can in approach boundary-circles, but the radius of these circles must be < (1 + sqrt(2))r₀ . However, in the equations that Birkeland used up to this point there were (unless I have not looked well enough) only the magnetic field and the gravitational field in the equations of motion of the particles. So, I don't know exactly how to rhyme this, without going detailed through the derivation, for which I do not have time right now. However, the rest of the mathematical analysis is based on getting the particles to certain limiting circles and thus creating the planets and until now I have not found anything that describes the solar wind, or electrons being accelerated by an electric field from the sun to the heliopshere (or whatever Birkeland may have called it as that term probably did not exist in his time) and the electrons dragging along the ions. I am gladly set straight if I have made an error in my skipping through the Birkeland book. Maybe I missed how the solar wind is created.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist

2nd July 2009, 01:48 AM	#455
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina So what makes you think it's all that different in space? The gas in a "plasma ball" is basically like the Earth's atmosphere, very very small ionization level, and because of the method used, there are lots of discharges like lightning in the Earth's atmosphere. The gas in space is at least 99% ionized if not more. Methinks, thars a difference. Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I find it funny that your group accepts the fact that plasma is an excellent conductor, you accept that many charged particles whiz by the Earth at over a million miles per hour, sometimes up to a 1/3 of the speed of light. You refuse however to note that this charged particle "flow" is also known as "current flow" and that the whole solar atmosphere is experiencing "current flow". It's like you all have a mental block and are ignoring the key piece of evidence, namely the fact this charged particle flow is constant, just as Birkeland predicted. Michael, equal amounts of positive and negative charge are whizzing by the Earth at basically equal velocity. Thus this flow does not constitute a current because current is: $<br /> j = n_e * v_e q_e + \Sigma_i n_i v_i * q_i<br />$ Moving charges does not equate a net current, this is just basic electrodynamics and Birkeland would have told you so. There is, however, a slight net current flowing, which is created by the heliospheric current sheet in combination with the Parker spiral of the solar wind. This current is necessary to separate the two magnetic hemispheres of the heliosphere (field pointing away from the sun and field pointing towards the sun). Because the current must be perpendicular to the field, this results in a small component of the current in the (anti)solar direction.
tusenfem Illuminator Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 3,169	__________________ Scientific progress goes BOINK -- Calvin & Hobbes twitter: @tusenfem -- Super Duper Space Plasma Physicist Last edited by tusenfem; 2nd July 2009 at 01:53 AM.

2nd July 2009, 11:33 AM	#456
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Time and time again, you've been proven wrong. Excuse me, but you can't "prove me wrong" by ignoring every single detail in the image. You'd have to actually address the image DETAILS and explain them in some fashion or another to 'prove me wrong'. Since the whole lot of you refuses to even address ANY of the details of the image, you haven't "proven" anything other than the fact you collectively can't and won't explain the image. Quote: Time and time again, people have pointed out to you the errors and inconsistencies of your ideas. You guys make up strawman cartoon characteratures of my ideas and attack them, you never actually listen or respond the model I've actually presented. I doubt you could even explain it properly let, let alone honestly critique it. Quote: Time and time again, you've refused to answer simple questions, or even to define the terms you use. I'm willing to do that, but you seem to refuse to even address a single specific detail of the images. What can I do but throw up my hands in discust? Don't you figure there was some reason I came to these conclusions that had something to do with the details we observe in these images? If you can't and won't explain them, all that tells me is that none of you have any valid method to explain these images in terms of standard solar theory. I tried to explain them using standard solar theory myself, but alas it never fit. Birkeland's solar model does jive with these observations of "rigid" (I'll define that for Tim in the next post) features in these images at a depth that is consistent with his experiments. Quote: Do we all have a mental block? No, Michael. You do. You don't have the faintest understanding of even freshman-level physics. This coming from the guy that hasn't touched a SINGLE specific detail that that specific image... Yawn. More personal attack, no focus on the science. You folks are becoming painfully predictable. Quote: You have absolutely no clue about the theories you are trying to overturn. And you have proven that you are uninterested in ever learning about those theories. If you mean "learning about" all sorts of invisible metaphysical friends of yours, no, not really. If you mean learn about this image based on standard solar theory, I am interested in hearing your explanation. So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us. What can I do? I can't make you address the details of the image, but the fact you won't touch them tells me volumes. None of you really have a valid explanation of what's going on at the level of actual physics. If it's not a math formula, and it's about actual physics and physical processes, you guys don't understand diddly squat. You're all bluster, and no science. Not one detail in that image has been touched by any of you.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 11:48 AM	#457
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399	Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but... Originally Posted by Michael Mozina .So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us. The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image: Originally Posted by GeeMack There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. If you ask why there's a bunny in the clouds, when in fact there is no bunny, people will not tell you why there's a bunny in the clouds. Now if you ask why it looks like there's a bunny in the clouds, you'll get reasonable replies. In fact, you've gotten reasonable replies, many of them. Why is that surface there? It's not. Why does it look like a surface there? It looks like a surface as a result of the process of creating a running difference image. An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer. You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive. Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist. This is very bizarre behaviour.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd July 2009, 12:03 PM	#458
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by Tim Thompson Note emphasis mine: Please define "rigid" as specifically as you can. Fair enough. I'll define it loosely as a pattern of persistence of structures with "very limited change/time", specifically compared to the plasma structures in the solar atmosphere. Let's start by talking about the "lifespan" of various "structures' in the photosphere. Any K-band image of the photosphere shows us a series of "structures" that are located at the surface of the photosphere. These "structures" have a very limited lifespan of around 10 minutes or so, because the whole surface is convecting heat, much like a boiling liquid. Kosovichev's Doppler images (including some images he has emailed to me personally) show very consistent features under the photosphere, like that image on the tsunami page. They typically also show us the waves that pass through the photosphere. In every way the photosphere acts a lot like a liquid as defined in MHD theory. That rigid feature that I circled in Kosovichev's video however is "persistent" and unaffected by the wave in the photosphere in terms of it's overall shape, size, outline and lifespan. Why is that? During the CME event in that RD image we also find "persistent features" that are not consistent with "light plasma" in a "light plasma" atmosphere, but rather these features have a persistence and lifespan that far exceeds anything we find in the photosphere. The chromosphere in Hinode images shows that this part of the atmosphere is even more dynamic than the photosphere, and of course the corona reaches millions of degrees Kelvin and it's also extremely dynamic. How do we get persistence in such a dynamic and changing environment like a CME event in the case of the RD image? How about that angular structure in Kosovichev's Doppler image? Why is that feature persistent throughout the whole movie? Quote: Please indicate what constitutes a "dense" plasma. A dense plasma is one that contains more ions per cubic meter than a light plasma It may also be composed of significantly heavier elements. It could be cooler as well. Quote: Please define the physical conditions under which one might expect a "plasma" to become "rigid" (which may also require a more specific definition of "plasma"). I do not personally expect plasma to ever become "rigid" which is why I believe we're looking at a solid crust in these images, not simply a more dense layer of plasma. Quote: I trust you already have at hand a reference to a controlled laboratory experiment in which sufficiently "rigid" plasma has been observed, under the same physical conditions as one might expect for the Sun? Rigid in this case is simply a matter of noticing which structures 'change over time', and which ones do not change as rapidly if at all. Whereas light plasma features in the photosphere come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals, these features in the RD and Dopper images have a lifespan that is far in excess of anything related to light plasma in the solar atmosphere. The Doppler image in particular shows key features that can only be located UNDERNEATH the photosphere.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd July 2009 at 12:31 PM.

2nd July 2009, 12:18 PM	#459
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by D'rok Sorry to cherry pick one part of your reply, but... The following is a complete and definitive answer to your key observations of the image: GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are LOTS of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements. He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images? Quote: An authoritative corroboration (Hurlburt) was provided as support for this answer. Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. I'm also CERTAIN the good Doctor would vehemently disagree GM that there is no flying stuff to be seen in the image. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, Hurlburt's one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image. Quote: You have given no rebuttal that has been the slightest bit persuasive. Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image? Quote: Your entire counter-argument has been to insist that your interlocutors describe the "physics" of features that have been shown conclusively not to exist. One cannot show anything conclusively by ignoring every detail in the image, making obviously false statements, and by avoiding the details entirely. That only demonstrates conclusively that they can't actually explain the events in this image, so they're intentionally avoiding dealing the the details in these images. Quote: This is very bizarre behaviour. IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd July 2009 at 12:37 PM.

2nd July 2009, 12:36 PM	#460
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina GM:There's no flying stuff in a running difference image, Michael. Well, let's start here. That statement it patently and completely false. This is a running difference image of an area of the surface that is experiencing a coronal mass ejection process. There are LOTS of things flying around in that image that can be observed in that image moving from the bottom right, toward the upper left of that image. It's hard to take his answer seriously when he makes absurdly false statements. I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process. The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image. GeeMack can correct me on this if I am misunderstanding him. Quote: He has also stated that the persistent patterns in the image are a result of the RD imaging process, which is also easily disproved by looking at any RD image from the LASCO series. You will not find a single one of them that shows "persistent patterns" as a result of the imaging technique itself. Any patterns in the image (like stars in the background) are there physically in the image and remain in the image in those "patterns' because they exist that way in the first place. Any patterns we find are a result of what's going on in the image itself, not because of the imaging technique. The RD images from LASCO show us that plasma flys off the sun in "waves", and we can see such waves develop and mature in the original 171A images and the RD images. He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". How can I take him seriously if he can't A) isolate the source of light in the original 171A images (at least RC could do that much) B) figure out that patterns in the image have nothing to do with the technique, and C) that there is flying stuff to be observe in all the images, 171A original images and RD images? All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features. Quote: Technically the only answer that Hurlburt provided could be considered technically correct, even by my understanding based on the pitiful wording of his question. What I asked for however was an actual explanation of the details in that image, and Dr. Hurlburt has not done that, nor have any of you. Since no detailed explanation has ever been offered, his one single statement is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy and has not given us a single "explanation" of any detail in that image. Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate. (If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to be a very appropriate authority. Quote: Do you personally honestly believe that there is no "flying stuff" observed in that image? Yes. Quote: IMO the bizarre behavior is the complete avoidance of the details in these images and the constant barrage of personal insults. While Tim and DD and many others have attempted to focus on the science itself, GM and RC and a couple others have consistently taken the low road and attack the individual, not the actual images. Which specific detail of the RD image did they explain to you, and how did that make you come to the conclusion that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event? GM and RC have made it plain to me that looking for distinct physical features in an RD image is nonsensical. This is completely different than saying that there is no "flying stuff" during a CME event, which is clearly not what anybody is saying.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC Last edited by D'rok; 2nd July 2009 at 12:46 PM.

2nd July 2009, 12:46 PM	#461
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by D'rok I don't doubt that there are lots of flying things in a coronal mass ejection process. So we should be able to observe it in the original images, and also the RD images as "changes over time". Quote: The point is, there are no "things", flying or otherwise, in an RD image. That is false. If there were no 'flying things", (specifically plasma), we would not have a CME at all. The fact it's a CME requires that there be lots of flying plasma to be observed in both the original images, and as moving things in the RD images as well. Quote: All of this still seems to me to be refuted by the fact that RD images aren't showing actual physical features. That is false. A RD image from LASCO shows physical things. It shows physical stars in the background. It shows physical waves of plasma flying off the sun. It shows these things because it shows us changes over time, and also more persistent features too, as in the case of the stars and planets in the background. They physically exist in nature and they show up in the original and RD image. They show up a bit differently in the RD images than in the original images, but that "flying stuff" and those patterns exist in nature and can be observed in RD images. Quote: Appeal to authority is only a fallacy when the authority is inappropriate. No, it's when you ASSUME a person is right ONLY because they are in a place of authority. Quote: (If that weren't the case, we would have to kiss the entire Common Law tradition goodbye). This Hurlburt chap seems to a very appropriate authority. Then let him come over here and provide us with actual explanations to the details observed in these images. I'm certain he will not do a worse job that GM, but until I hear his actual explanations to these details, I can't say whether than means anything to me or not. Quote: Yes. Then you know nothing at all about these images or the processes they show us. There is no way you can "analyze" these images properly if you don't understand what you're looking at. This is a CME event. There is no way that things are not flying around in the images because that is what the images show us. They show us "changes over time" and things that do not change over time as well. If there are changes happening we will observe them.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 12:53 PM	#462
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina No, it's when you ASSUME a person is right ONLY because they are in a place of authority. In formal logic, it is fallacious. In informal logic, it is not. GeeMack used it correctly in its proper - i.e., informal - context. As to the rest: I don't seriously expect to dent your armour when you are oblivious to the blows of those far more qualified than me (or you). I just find your behaviour fascinating in a gory traffic accident kind of way.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd July 2009, 01:08 PM	#463
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina That is false. If there were no 'flying things", (specifically plasma), we would not have a CME at all. The fact it's a CME requires that there be lots of flying plasma to be observed in both the original images, and as moving things in the RD images as well. That is false. A RD image from LASCO shows physical things. It shows physical stars in the background. It shows physical waves of plasma flying off the sun. It shows these things because it shows us changes over time, and also more persistent features too, as in the case of the stars and planets in the background. They physically exist in nature and they show up in the original and RD image. They show up a bit differently in the RD images than in the original images, but that "flying stuff" and those patterns exist in nature and can be observed in RD images. This is one of the delusions that Michael Mozina is spewing in this thread (others include that 171A band images can detect the tiny contribution from the photopsphere, magnetic fields do not contain energy, etc.). RD images never show "physical things". They are computer generated animations of changes in the radiation emitted from physical things. Thus they never show persistant physical features. The "features" in the TRACE RD animation have been explained to MM many times before but here we go again: Every pixel in every frame in the animation is a record of the change of the pixel from the previous frame. The "mountain ranges" are changes in the flares in the corona. They are probably getting brighter as they climb toward the detector. In addition the flares seem to be expanding a bit - the mountains in the "mountain range" actually appear out of nowhere during the animation (see the upper part of the animation). The "flying stuff are changes in position and temperature of the material ejected by the CME in the corona. They are neither "flying" or "stuff" in the RD animation.. They are flying stuff in the original images. Is that simple enough for you Michael Mozina? Is there any "feature" that is not explained? If so can you tell us the frame number and list the pixels in it (see the first explanation above). Also a link to the "RD image from LASCO shows physical things" would be good. My guess is that the "stars in the background" are actually a record of the changes in positions of the stars in the background. ETA: Added the bits in red. There is no way to tell from the RD animation what actvity in the corona is changing in temperature and/or position. Astronomers thus look at the original images to identify what is happerning: Quote: This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB AVI movie (Cinepak compressed)shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! Last edited by Reality Check; 2nd July 2009 at 01:39 PM.

2nd July 2009, 01:08 PM	#464
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Excuse me, but you can't "prove me wrong" by ignoring every single detail in the image. You'd have to actually address the image DETAILS and explain them in some fashion or another to 'prove me wrong'. Since the whole lot of you refuses to even address ANY of the details of the image, you haven't "proven" anything other than the fact you collectively can't and won't explain the image. It's been done, so you're a liar. Quote: You guys make up strawman cartoon characteratures of my ideas and attack them, you never actually listen or respond the model I've actually presented. I doubt you could even explain it properly let, let alone honestly critique it. Interesting comment from a guy who apparently can't explain his own idea in a way that anyone can understand. Quote: I'm willing to do that, but you seem to refuse to even address a single specific detail of the images. Liar. Quote: What can I do but throw up my hands in discust? You could actually explain what in the hell you're talking about in a way that sane, intelligent human beings could understand. You haven't done that yet. Quote: Don't you figure there was some reason I came to these conclusions that had something to do with the details we observe in these images? Could that reason perhaps be mental illness? What other reason do you suppose would account for the fact that nobody else interprets the details we observe in these images the same way you do? I'm genuinely curious. One of my main reasons for even staying involved in these discussion, aside from the occasional pleasure I get out of seeing you set yourself up to take another lickin', is a serious interest in the mind set of someone who could be so stupid, so totally detached from reality on one issue, as you are, and still be mentally capable of tying his own shoes, feeding himself, and performing other mundane daily tasks. Quote: If you can't and won't explain them, all that tells me is that none of you have any valid method to explain these images in terms of standard solar theory. When it was explained, you ignored it. You're a liar. By definition, an ignorant liar. Quote: I tried to explain them using standard solar theory myself, but alas it never fit. Birkeland's solar model does jive with these observations of "rigid" (I'll define that for Tim in the next post) features in these images at a depth that is consistent with his experiments. But since you can't see anything below about 500 kilometers into the photosphere, you're clearly wrong. Also, and probably more importantly, since you've proven that you'll misrepresent Birkeland in order to support your delusion, your interpretation of any of his work is so subjective as to be scientifically useless. Quote: This coming from the guy that hasn't touched a SINGLE specific detail that that specific image... Yawn. More personal attack, no focus on the science. You folks are becoming painfully predictable. As are your incessant lies. Quote: If you mean "learning about" all sorts of invisible metaphysical friends of yours, no, not really. If you mean learn about this image based on standard solar theory, I am interested in hearing your explanation. No, you're not. You've proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Quote: So far however, none of you have addressed any of the key observations of the image, so it is not as though any of you have actually "tried" to explain any of the "physics" for us. Liar. You want actual physics, go take a course. Quote: What can I do? Since you asked, you could learn to read and write English in a way that allows you to actually communicate effectively with sane, intelligent human beings? You could maybe see a mental health professional and work on getting back in touch with reality? You know, since you asked. Quote: I can't make you address the details of the image, but the fact you won't touch them tells me volumes. None of you really have a valid explanation of what's going on at the level of actual physics. Start with a couple of sequential 171Å wavelength images of million-ish degree emissions from a CME located in the coronal region of the Sun, some 2000+ kilometers above the photosphere and outward. Run those images through a software program that compares them pixel by pixel and prints a graph or chart showing the difference between each corresponding pixel. Oddly, that output image may appear to show texture, surface features, and terrain. Of course that apparent terrain isn't actually a surface. It is a simple, easily understood optical illusion that has been thoroughly explained by the actual experts who were responsible for designing the research program, and acquiring and processing the data. There's all you need to know about the physics of your running difference image, Michael. You can probably learn about the physics of the CME itself by studying any starting level college textbook that deals with solar physics. One paragraph. Boy, was that easy. And you've been lying about getting no explanation for how many years now? Quote: If it's not a math formula, and it's about actual physics and physical processes, you guys don't understand diddly squat. You're all bluster, and no science. Not one detail in that image has been touched by any of you. Details? Touched 'em all, liar. And, how about this one? Why is there not one single researcher, educator, or other professional in any field related to solar physics who thinks you're right about your fantasy? How is it that you've never piqued anyone's interest in this solid surfaced Sun crap enough to get anyone to work with you, do some math that you obviously can't do, help you with the physics that you are so woefully ignorant of, explain your wacky conjecture in plain English since you are unable to do that yourself? Really, a sane person would look for rational answers to those questions. Only a dyed-in-the-wool lunatic crackpot would ignore them. Where are you on this, Michael?
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235

2nd July 2009, 01:15 PM	#465
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina He's literally 0 for 2 in his "explanation". Yeah? Everyone else believes me and none of them believe you, so I'm kickin' your ass here, ain't I?
GeeMack Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 7,235

2nd July 2009, 01:22 PM	#466
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by GeeMack It's been done, so you're a liar. WHICH SPECIFIC detail did you address? Details? What details? Quote: Interesting comment from a guy who apparently can't explain his own idea in a way that anyone can understand. I've done so plenty of times to people who WISH to actually 'understand'. Quote: Liar. This is your typically sleazy sort of response. You are the liar. You've not discussed a single detail in the image. The few things you actually stated were clearly false. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" You're pathetic
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 01:24 PM	#467
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by GeeMack Yeah? Everyone else believes me and none of them believe you, so I'm kickin' your ass here, ain't I? If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Sheesh.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 01:27 PM	#468
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina If anybody actually does believe you, you're only leading them ridiculously astray with pure BS. "Flying stuff? What flying stuff?" Sheesh. RC just explained it clearly. Again.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd July 2009, 01:46 PM	#469
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by Reality Check This is one of the delusions that Michael Mozina is spewing in this thread (others include that 171A band images can detect the tiny contribution from the photopsphere, Er, where did I say it could detect tiny contributions from the photosphere? You made that up on your own. Quote: magnetic fields do not contain energy, etc.). I didn't say that either. I said magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a complete and fully formed continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to "reconnect" to other "lines". Quote: RD images never show "physical things". They are computer generated animations of changes in the radiation emitted from physical things. Thus they never show persistant physical features. They also show the changes OF physical things, like the location of the "flying stuff" blowing from the lower right toward the upper left after the CME event. It is because that "flying stuff" changes locations that we are able to watch it move! Get real. Quote: The "features" in the TRACE RD animation have been explained to MM many times before but here we go again:[list=1][]Every pixel in every frame in the animation is a record of the change of the pixel from the previous frame. We all agree with that point. So how is that specific to any particular detail in the image? Quote: []The "mountain ranges" are changes in the flares. The features aren't "changing" however. Why is that? Quote: They are probably getting brighter as they climb toward the detector. Then why are the bases of the loops always brightest in the 171A solar moss images? Quote: In addition the flares seem to be expanding a bit - the mountains in the "mountain range" actually appear out of nowhere during the animation (see the upper part of the animation). They don't appear out of nowhere, the structures don't exist in the first frame because there is no image before that first frame to compare it to or subtract it from. All RD images become persistent with two usable original images, but you need a minimum of two of them. This particular image could be an "averaged' image but these items do not just "appear out of thin air". They last for days in SOHO and STEREO RD imagery. Quote: The "flying stuff are changes in position and temperature of the material ejected by the CME. Hey, you actually "explained" real visual detail of the RD image! Congrats. Quote: They are neither "flying" or "stuff" in the RD animation.. Ooops, you then blew it. False. The plasma that comes from the CME is certainly visible in the original and RD image. There is "flying stuff" in both sets of images. The lighter parts of the RD image is where the hot stuff moved to, whereas the darker regions are where the hot stuff moved from. You can see the changes over time, but those changes are directly related to flying plasma in the solar atmosphere. These features are not there just because. They are there because there is flying stuff in the atmosphere which moves during the CME process. Quote: They are flying stuff in the original images. Ok, but now which is it? Is plasma flying around in these images or not? You can't have it both ways. Quote: Is that simple enough for you Michael Mozina? Not really. You more or less contracted yourself particularly on point 3. You didn't address any of the persistent features (why they are persistent), why we observe a peeling effect during the process, etc. It's a rather limited "explanation", but you did get on thing right. Quote: Is there any "feature" that is not explained? Ya, all those persistent angular features, that peeling effect we observe, the visual changes related to the "flying stuff" after the CME, etc. There's a lot you didn't touch. Quote: If so can you tell us the frame number and list the pixels in it (see the first explanation above). Pick any of the full frames and explain the angular features. Quote: Also a link to the "RD image from LASCO shows physical things" would be good. My guess is that the "stars in the background" are actually a record of the changes in positions of teh stars in the background. Try the SOHO archives. They are arranged by date in monthly folders. Look for *_dit images. http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/ Show me any angular features in a LASCO RD images that are persistent over time and that are directly related to the RD imaging process rather than something actually in the image.
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Last edited by Michael Mozina; 2nd July 2009 at 01:53 PM.

2nd July 2009, 01:46 PM	#470
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 28,521	Originally Posted by D'rok RC just explained it clearly. Again. Not only is he incapable of understanding the many simple explanations of the RD animation that he has been given over many years, he is also unable to comprehend the actual caption for the TRACE 171A image and RD animation: Coronal mass ejection Quote: This is a snapshot of Active Region 9143 observed with TRACE in the 171Å passband, showing bright material around 1 million degrees. This image, taken at 17:07UT on August 28, 2000, shows the corona during a C3.3 flare, associated with a mass ejection (towards the upper left of the image). The associated 3.3MB AVI movie (Cinepak compressed)shows the flare and mass ejection as a difference movie: where the image turns bright, the solar corona has become brighter after 16UT, and where it turns black it has dimmed. This shows the ejected material very well, first flying upward at several hundred kilometers per second. Later, some of it is seen to fall back as a dark cloud. The bright and dark areas of his "mountain ranges" are explained by the scientists who took the images as temperature changes! The movement of his "flying stuff" is the CME ejected material flying upward and then falling back.
	__________________ NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist!

2nd July 2009, 01:47 PM	#471
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by D'rok RC just explained it clearly. Again. So which is it? Flying stuff, or no flying stuff?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 01:48 PM	#472
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina So which is it? Flying stuff, or no flying stuff? Flying stuff in the CME. No flying stuff in the RD images. Why is this so difficult to understand?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

2nd July 2009, 01:50 PM	#473
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by Reality Check Not only is he incapable of understanding the many simple explanations of the RD animation that he has been given over many years, You mean like "flying stuff, what flying stuff"? Quote: he is also unable to comprehend the actual caption for the TRACE 171A image and RD animation: Coronal mass ejection The bright and dark areas of his "mountain ranges" are explained by the scientists who took the images as temperature changes! Nobody is disputing the statement that the bright process observed is a CME, so what does that have to do with 'mountain ranges" prior to the CME event and after the CME event is over? Those angular features are there before, during and after the CME. Quote: The movement of his "flying stuff" is the CME ejected material flying upward and then falling back. They didn't claim "flying stuff? What flying stuff?", did they?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 01:51 PM	#474
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361	Originally Posted by D'rok Flying stuff in the CME. No flying stuff in the RD images. Why is this so difficult to understand? The RD images do show the flying stuff too. You can see it move from the CME event location in the lower right, and move toward the upper left during the CME process. There is certainly "flying stuff" that shows up as brighter, AND FAR MORE MOBILE regions in the image. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Michael Mozina Banned Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 9,361

2nd July 2009, 01:55 PM	#475
D'rok Free Barbarian on The Land Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,399	Originally Posted by Michael Mozina I didn't say that either. I said magnetic fields lack physical substance and they form as a complete and fully formed continuum, without beginning, without end, and without the ability to "reconnect" to other "lines". You seem to be losing track of your claims in this thread: Originally Posted by Michael Mozina Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is BECAUSE OF the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy?
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC